TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court sets aside order, remits matter for decision, emphasizing jurisdiction to consider stay petitions on merits.</h1> <h3>J. Srinivasan Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, The Tax Recovery Officer</h3> J. Srinivasan Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, The Tax Recovery ... Issues:Petitioner aggrieved by communication and order, failure to comply with conditions, multiple petitions for stay, rejection of stay petitions, refusal to entertain petitions, jurisdiction of Appellate Authority.Analysis:The petitioner appealed against assessment orders for multiple years but did not file stay petitions initially. After facing challenges in complying with conditions, the petitioner filed various petitions for stay with different tax authorities. The Additional Commissioner rejected the stay petitions citing guidelines on demand stays. The Principal Commissioner also required payment for stay but rejected a petition for lifting bank account attachment. The petitioner then filed petitions before the Appellate Authority, citing legal precedents and requesting stay with installment payments. The Appellate Authority refused to entertain the petitions, stating it lacked administrative powers for such requests. However, the court clarified that the Appellate Authority has jurisdiction to consider stay petitions on merits.The court noted that the petitioner's conduct could be seen as forum shopping due to approaching multiple authorities without compliance. Despite this, the court emphasized that such conduct should not be a ground for refusing to consider stay petitions. Referring to legal precedents, the court held that the Appellate Authority has the power to deal with stay petitions on merits and in accordance with the law. Consequently, the court partly allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the Appellate Authority for a decision on merits after affording a personal hearing.In conclusion, the court acknowledged the petitioner's actions but emphasized the Appellate Authority's jurisdiction to consider stay petitions on their merits. The court's decision to remit the matter back to the Appellate Authority for a proper evaluation aligns with legal principles and precedents, ensuring a fair and thorough examination of the petitioner's requests.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
