TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 518
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tax 6(1), Mumbai under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). By the impugned order, the Assessing Officer has granted stay against the coercive recovery of tax as determined by assessment order dated 17 December 2013 on the condition that the petitioner pay 50% of the total demand of Rs.493,19,16,310/. 3 The impugned order dated 21 January 2014 after adjusting the refund of Rs.151,37,10.030/pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12 under Section 245 of the Act as per the intimation dated 31 December 2013 has directed the petitioner to pay the balance of Rs.95,22,48,125/by 30 January 2014. 4 The petitioner carries business of life insurance under the certificate of registration granted by Insurance Regulatory & Development....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ral . 6 Consequent to the order of Assessment dated 17 December 2013, the Assessing Officer issued a notice of demand on 17 December 2013 itself to the petitioner under Section 156 of the Act determining a sum of Rs.493,19,16,310/as payable by the petitioner for the Assessment Year 201213. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 17 December 2013, the petitioner filed an appeal to the CIT (A) on 7 January 2014 and prayed for early hearing of its appeal in view of the huge demand of tax. However, the CIT(A) by communication dated 9 January 2014 rejected the petitioner's request for early hearing. 7 In the meantime, on 8 January 2014, the petitioner filed an application under Section 220(6) of the Act with the Assessing Officer see....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs.95,22,48,125/on or before 30/01/2014. (iv) The balance 50% of the demand can be kept in abeyance till the disposal of appeal by CIT(A) or six months from the date of this order whichever is earlier, subject to payment of Rs.95,22,48,125/as mentioned in para 3 above." 9 Ms. Arati Vissanji, learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition submits as under: ( a) The impugned order rejecting the stay application does not meet with the requirements of the manner in which stay applications are to be disposed of as laid down by this Court in the matter of KEC International Limited v/s. B. R. Balakrishnan & Others 251 ITR 158 and the UTI Mutual Funds v/s. Income Tax Officer 345 page 171. The impugned order ignores the prima....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....apply to the CIT(A) on the administrative side to secure a stay of the demand under Section 220(6) of the Act. It is urged that this Court should not entertain this petition. 11 We have considered the rival submissions. We find it shocking that inspite of the order of the Tribunal and the CIT(A), on identical issues for the earlier Assessment Years 200506 to 2011-12. The Assessing Officer in the order dated 17 December 2013 has ignored them. The Assessment Order dated 17 December 2013 ignores it on the ground that the view of the Tribunal is not tenable. In our hierarchical system of jurisprudence, it is not open to the Lower Authority to ignore the binding decision of a Superior Authority unless the order of the Superior Authority ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar 2011-12 till 31 December 2013 does not appear bonafide. The effect was given to the order of CIT(A) after six months i.e. only on raising a demand on completion of assessment for Assessment Year 201213. It is apparent that the revenue is keen in not giving petitioner its refund and are acting contrary to and in defiance of orders passed by the Appellate Authority. 13 Besides, the impugned order is a nonspeaking order and does not consider at all the petitioner's submissions. It is particularly submitted that the issue is covered in their favour by order of the Tribunal and CIT(A) in their own case. In view thereof, the demand itself was not sustainable. The reliance placed upon the Circular No.530 dated 6 March 1989 by the petition....