2013 (9) TMI 1187

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....11. This order was upheld by the order dated 29th May, 2013, passed by respondent No.3 - Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and was further approved by the order of respondent No.4 dated 12th June, 2013. These orders are also impugned. Respondent No.2 directed the petitioner not to be treated as an assessee-in-default subject to its depositing ₹ 84.31 crores on or before the 25th day of each month from the month of May, 2013 to February, 2014 and a sum of ₹ 57.34 crores for the month of March, 2014. The aggregate amount was, therefore, ₹ 900.47 crores. There was a total stay of the demand to the extent of ₹ 617.22 crores. 3. Mr. Mistri, and Mr. Gupta, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petition....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it which arises on capital account in this regard cannot be the subject matter of income under section 28(iv) of the said Act and in this regard, relied upon the decision of the Tribunal at Kolkata in the case of ITO v. Shreyans Investment Pvt. Ltd. (141 ITD 672). In the impugned order, however, the respondent No.2 merely states that the addition was made after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard; that the petitioner's submissions had been critically considered with evidence on record by the AO and that the assessee had not furnished any judicial pronouncement in it's favour or contrary to the view taken by the AO. Respondent No.2, therefore, rejected the application for stay on this issue. 6. The observation tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n this case. What is important for the purpose of this Writ Petition is the fact that these judgments were specifically relied upon by the petitioner. There is not even a reference to the same in the impugned order. 9. Mr. Gupta understandably found some difficulty in supporting the impugned order on the ground that it does not consider the above issue. He, however, submitted that the petitioner ought to be directed to deposit some amount. He further submitted that there ought to be an order directing that the appeal be heard expeditiously by the CIT in view not merely of the quantum of the claim, but in view of the nature of the claim as well. He submitted that the issue involved affects several other matters as well. 10. In the facts of....