Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI • Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions • Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations • Issue-wise legal analysis • Practical arguments and supporting content • Professionally structured draft ready for further review.
Court sets aside order under Income Tax Act, remits for reconsideration, grants stay of coercive steps The court set aside the challenged order under Section 251(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, finding that the second respondent did not independently exercise ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Court sets aside order under Income Tax Act, remits for reconsideration, grants stay of coercive steps
The court set aside the challenged order under Section 251(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, finding that the second respondent did not independently exercise discretion but directed the petitioner to file a stay petition. The court remitted the matter for reconsideration and disposal of stay petitions within two months, granting a stay of coercive steps for ten weeks. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.
Issues: Challenge to order under Section 251(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The petitioner challenged Ext.P4 order of the second respondent as illegal, contending it amounted to refusing to exercise the jurisdiction conferred under Section 251(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the remedies under Section 220(6) and Section 251(1)(c) are independent, and having already availed the remedy of appeal under Section 246, the second respondent should have passed orders considering the grounds raised against the assessment orders. The petitioner referred to a Full Bench judgment and requested a stay pending appeal. On the other hand, the respondent argued that Ext.P4 was not a refusal to grant stay and suggested that the petitioner could request a reconsideration of the stay application. The court noted the submissions and perused the record.
The court found that the second respondent did not exercise the discretion and power independently under Section 251(1)(c) but rather advised the petitioner to file a stay petition. The court concluded that the exercise of jurisdiction by the second respondent was not within the scope of his discretion. The court accepted the alternative submission by the respondent and set aside the Ext.P4 order, remitting the matter to the second respondent for reconsideration and disposal of the stay petitions within two months. The court granted a stay of coercive steps against recovery for ten weeks from the date of the judgment. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
