CBDT stay guidelines do not override prima facie case, balance of convenience, or financial stringency in stay requests.

CBDT stay guidelines are to be considered as relevant guidance, but they do not displace the ordinary factors governing stay applications, including prima facie case, balance of convenience, and financial stringency. The impugned rejection was held unsustainable because those material considerations were not addressed. As the earlier stay petition did not set out particulars of financial stringency, conditional relief was found appropriate, and the assessee was permitted to file a fresh stay application before the assessing officer within the stipulated time and on payment of costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the stay petition was sustainable when the applicable guidelines did not displace the need to consider the assessee's prima facie case, balance of convenience, and financial stringency, and whether the assessee should be permitted to file a fresh stay application.

Analysis: The office memoranda of the CBDT were treated as guidelines to be kept in view while deciding stay applications, but not as provisions that exclude the ordinary considerations governing stay. The impugned order was found to be unsustainable because those material considerations were not taken into account. At the same time, the earlier stay petition had not disclosed particulars of financial stringency, so conditional relief was considered appropriate.

Conclusion: The rejection of the stay petition was interfered with, and the assessee was permitted to submit a fresh stay application before the assessing officer on payment of costs and within the stipulated time.

Ratio Decidendi: CBDT stay guidelines do not override the need to assess a stay request on the basis of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and financial stringency.

---