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>Tribunal denies stay petition, stresses ITO discretion in granting stay under Section 220(6) of IT Act</h1> <h3>ASSAM CONDUCTORS & TUBES LTD. Versus INSEPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER.</h3> ASSAM CONDUCTORS & TUBES LTD. Versus INSEPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER. - TTJ 033, 101, Issues:Stay petition filed by assessee due to completed assessment exceeding returned loss amount. Tribunal's disposal of appeal and subsequent stay petition by assessee. Tribunal's authority to grant stay of demand after appeal disposal. Applicability of Section 220(6) of the IT Act in the context of stay of demand.The judgment revolves around a stay petition filed by the assessee following an assessment that exceeded the loss amount initially returned. The appeal, initially disposed of by the Tribunal, resulted in the matter being remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal. The assessee sought a stay of the demand due to fears of coercive action by the Department. The Tribunal, after considering submissions from both parties, highlighted the necessity of a proper application for stay and the absence of pending appeals or references. The Tribunal emphasized the discretion of the ITO in treating the assessee as not in default under Section 220(6) of the IT Act during the pendency of an appeal before the first appellate authority.The Tribunal acknowledged the inherent power to grant a stay of recovery proceedings even during the pendency of a reference application before the High Court. However, in the present case, as the appeal before the Tribunal had been disposed of and the matter remanded to the CIT(A), the Tribunal concluded that it lacked the inherent power to stay collection. The Tribunal emphasized that the appeal continued to be pending before the CIT(A) for fresh disposal, and the provisions of Section 220(6) of the IT Act were to be considered. The discretion to treat the assessee as not in default under Section 220(6) was highlighted, subject to conditions imposed by the ITO.The Tribunal noted the concerns raised by the assessee's counsel regarding potential coercive measures by the Department for immediate tax recovery. Despite the plea for a stay of recovery proceedings, the Tribunal emphasized the ITO's discretion under Section 220(6) and the need for justified conditions, such as security, if a stay were to be granted. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments emphasizing the importance of a judicious exercise of power by the ITO in granting stays.Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the stay petition, citing the remand of the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal as the appeal before the Tribunal was no longer pending. The assessee was advised to approach the departmental authorities based on the observations made in the judgment. The Tribunal highlighted the substantial stakes involved and expressed confidence in the Department's judicious handling of the matter based on the observations provided.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
