TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1968 (11) TMI 9
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication dated June 12, 1967, of the petitioner under section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On May 17, 1967, the Income-tax Officer communicated to the petitioner that, having regard to his representation to the Commissioner of Income-tax on April 9, 1967, in regard to the payment of tax, the Income-tax Officer was prepared to stay the collection of the tax in dispute in the appeal, if he pai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er letter dated May 17, 1967, could not be altered but he was prepared to give time for payment till June 12, 1967, and if there was no payment there would be no stay. Until June 12, 1967, there was thus no application before the Income-tax Officer himself to exercise his power under section 220(6). The letter of the Income-tax Officer dated May 17, 1967, naturally, therefore, embodied only the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssioner himself, when once the petitioner approached the Commissioner and the latter made an order, it was the duty of the Income-tax Officer to carry out the Commissioner's orders and not to vary them. On this basis the revenue proceeds in the counter-affidavit to say that, that being the position of the Income-tax Officer, no mandamus can issue to him. We are of the view that this is not a corre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en to him by the Commissioner in exercise of his administrative superiority. Even if there is such a direction given by the Commissioner, however embarrassing it may be for the Income-tax Officer, it is his statutory duty to consider the question of stay by applying his own uncontrolled mind and express his view which will be embodied in his order. It may be, in going through that process, he may ....