TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1357
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the second respondent dated 30.6.2017. 3. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent against the orders passed by the third respondent for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2015-16. Initially, when the appeals were filed before the first respondent, it appears that the petitioner did not file petitions for stay. However, the petitioner thought fit to approach the third respondent - his Assessing Officer and filed petitions dated 06.2.2017 to keep the demands in abeyance. The third respondent passed an order on 07.2.2017 directing the petitioner to pay 15% of the outstanding demand for the relevant assessment years, submit proof of payment and give an undertaking to cooperate in the early disposal of the appeals. In ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment years seeking to keep the demands in abeyance till the disposal of the appeals before the first respondent. The second respondent, by order dated 30.6.2017, opined that the petitioner needs to pay 15% of the demands in July 2017 for being entitled to grant of stay. Yet again, the petitioner did not question the order dated 30.6.2017. In the interregnum, since the petitioner's bank accounts were attached, he approached the second respondent by way of a petition dated 08.9.2017, received in the office of the second respondent on 27.9.2017, requesting for lifting of attachment. This petition was rejected by the second respondent by order dated 06.10.2017. As usual, the petitioner did not question that order also. 6. Even prior to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd made a further prayer to permit him to pay 5% of the total outstanding demand amounting to Rs. 1,46,76,920/- in monthly instalments of Rs. 1 lakh. The petitioner also prayed for the early hearing of the appeals. Those petitions were not entertained by the first respondent and an order to that effect was passed on 12.10.2017, which is impugned in this writ petition. 8. Paragraph 2 of the impugned order would be relevant, as the first respondent expressed his opinion as to why he was not able to act upon the petitions filed by the petitioner dated 03.8.2017. On a reading of paragraph 2 of the impugned order, it appears that the first respondent was largely guided by the penultimate paragraph in the petitions dated 03.8.2017 wherein the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay petitions. 11. As observed earlier, the first respondent has not come to a conclusion that the petitions for stay are not maintainable before him. But, what appears to have passed in his mind is that he cannot act as an Administrative Authority and permit payment in instalments. Therefore, the petitioner is not justified in stating that the first respondent held that he had no power to grant stay. 12. In so far as the observation that the petitioner had not filed stay petitions along with the original appeals is concerned, there can be no estoppal in this regard, as the petitioner would be entitled to move petitions for stay pending disposal of the appeals before the Appellate Authority. That apart, the first respondent stated that the....