Appellate power includes stay relief: pending stay applications must be decided promptly, with coercive recovery held in abeyance meanwhile.

An appellate authority hearing an income-tax appeal has incidental power to entertain and dispose of a stay application, including passing interim protection where necessary. A pending stay request cannot be left undecided indefinitely, and judicial intervention may be warranted where prolonged non-disposal would undermine the appeal. The authority was therefore directed to decide the stay application within 15 days, with coercive recovery to remain in abeyance meanwhile. The ruling affirms that stay relief is ancillary to appellate jurisdiction and that unreasonable delay in dealing with such applications can justify writ directions to prevent the appeal from being rendered ineffective.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has power to entertain and dispose of a stay application and pass interim orders pending appeal; (ii) whether the appellate authority can be directed to decide the stay application expeditiously and recovery can be kept in abeyance meanwhile.

Issue (i): whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has power to entertain and dispose of a stay application and pass interim orders pending appeal.

Analysis: The existence of appellate power includes the incidental power to grant stay, and the authority cannot remain inactive on a pending stay request. A stay application requires judicial consideration on relevant factors, but that does not justify total inaction. The earlier decisions relied upon supported the proposition that the appellate authority possesses such power.

Conclusion: The stay application was maintainable and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had the power to pass an interim order.

Issue (ii): whether the appellate authority can be directed to decide the stay application expeditiously and recovery can be kept in abeyance meanwhile.

Analysis: The prolonged non-disposal of the stay application was treated as unjustified. The writ jurisdiction was invoked because the authority had failed to discharge its statutory duty within a reasonable time. To prevent coercive recovery defeating the pending appeal, directions were considered necessary.

Conclusion: The appellate authority was directed to dispose of the stay application within 15 days, and coercive recovery was expected to remain in abeyance meanwhile.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded to the extent of securing a direction for prompt disposal of the stay application and interim protection against coercive recovery, thereby affording partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate authority vested with power to hear an appeal also has incidental power to decide a stay application, and when such application is pending, it must be disposed of within a reasonable time; otherwise, writ directions may issue to prevent coercive recovery from rendering the appeal ineffective.

---