https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7361 The court rejected the petitioner's narrow interpretation of Section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that the Income-tax Officer's discretion should not be limited to granting stay on furnishing security only. It held that the officer must exercise discretion in accordance with the law and reason, without considering irrelevant matters. The court concluded that the respondent and higher officers did not act arbitrarily and were not obligated to consider the petitioner as not in default solely upon furnishing security. The petition was dismissed, and the court ordered expeditious disposal of the appeal within three months. en-us Mon, 29 Jan 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7361 The court rejected the petitioner's narrow interpretation of Section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that the Income-tax Officer's discretion should not be limited to granting stay on furnishing security only. It held that the officer must exercise discretion in accordance with the law and reason, without considering irrelevant matters. The court concluded that the respondent and higher officers did not act arbitrarily and were not obligated to consider the petitioner as not in default solely upon furnishing security. The petition was dismissed, and the court ordered expeditious disposal of the appeal within three months. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 29 Jan 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7361