2016 (7) TMI 752

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... application for stay in respect of the Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 3. Both the impugned orders were passed under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The demand issued consequent to the assessment orders passed for the two assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 were stayed subject to petitioners paying 15% of the demand raised in each of the two assessment years as a condition precedent. 4. For both the Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14, consequent to the passing of the assessment orders, the petitioner has filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)]. Both the appeals are pending disposal. In the meantime, the petitioners had approached the Assessing Officer to stay the d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3) of the Act attaching the petitioners' bank account with Punjan National Bank, Ichalkaranji, Kolhapur. 6. We find that the impugned order dated 6th April, 2016 while disposing of the appeals has not followed the parameters laid down by this Court in KEC International Ltd. Vs. B.R. Balkrishnana & Ors. 251 ITR 158 while considering the stay applications. This obligation of the Revenue under Section 220(6) of the Act to consider the stay applications cannot be obliterated by instructions of the CBDT. The Assessing Officer has to consider the applications for stay independently and in a fit case direct a complete stay. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, after 6th April, 2016 as the petitioners took no steps to ....