Court sets aside order rejecting stay application, directs reassessment within 6 weeks, lifts bank account attachment, no further recovery allowed.

The court set aside the order rejecting the stay application due to non-compliance with guidelines and lack of reasoning. The Assessing Authority was directed to reconsider the application, considering all factors and pending applications, and issue a detailed order within six weeks. The petitioner's bank account attachment was lifted, and no further recovery actions were permitted until the new order. Writ petitions were disposed of without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the rejection of stay of demand application.
2. Compliance with guidelines for disposal of stay applications.
3. Consideration of prima facie case, financial stringency, and balance of convenience.
4. Pending applications under Section 154.
5. Attachment and appropriation of bank account.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the Rejection of Stay of Demand Application:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 04.02.2020, which rejected his application for stay of demand arising from the assessment for AY 2017-18. The assessment is under appeal before the CIT(A). The Assessing Officer disposed of the stay application through a non-speaking order, which did not comply with the required parameters for such disposals.

2. Compliance with Guidelines for Disposal of Stay Applications:
The court highlighted that the order rejecting the stay application did not comply with established guidelines. The parameters for considering a stay of disputed demand include the existence of a prima facie case, financial stringency, and balance of convenience. The court referenced previous rulings and CBDT instructions that mandate a detailed and reasoned order when disposing of stay applications.

3. Consideration of Prima Facie Case, Financial Stringency, and Balance of Convenience:
The court emphasized the necessity of assessing these three factors when deciding on a stay application. The CBDT’s instructions, including Instruction No. 1914 and subsequent modifications, provide a framework for such considerations. The court noted that the Assessing Officer failed to address these aspects in the impugned order, rendering it inadequate.

4. Pending Applications under Section 154:
The petitioner indicated that multiple applications under Section 154 were pending. The court acknowledged this and directed the Assessing Authority to consider these applications while reconsidering the stay application.

5. Attachment and Appropriation of Bank Account:
The petitioner’s bank account was attached and appropriated on 22.02.2020, which was also challenged. The court ordered the attachment to be lifted immediately in light of the judgment. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Assessing Authority, who was instructed to reconsider the stay application and pass a reasoned order within six weeks, taking into account the guidelines and pending applications under Section 154. No further recovery proceedings should be initiated until then.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the impugned order due to non-compliance with the required guidelines and lack of a reasoned decision. The Assessing Authority was directed to reconsider the stay application, considering all relevant factors and pending applications, and pass a detailed order within six weeks. The attachment of the petitioner’s bank account was lifted, and no further recovery actions were to be taken until the new order was issued. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly, with no costs.

---