TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1697
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) till the disposal of its pending appeals by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). 2. One impugned order dated 28th October, 2016 relates to demand for the Assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 while the other impugned order dated 28th October, 2016 relates to demand for the Assessment years, 2009-10, 2010- 11 and 2012-13. The impugned orders dated 28th October, 2016 has granted a conditional stay on petitioners depositing an amount aggregating to Rs. 232.79 crores for the Assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 and Rs. 377.68 crores for the Assessment year 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 in 4 installments at a gap of one month each commencing from 30th November, 2016. This was 15% o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner filed an additional ground of appeal which required CIT(A) to seek a remand report from the Assessing Officer on the fresh ground urged / filed. Consequently, hearing was adjourned to 20th February, 2017. Now, the hearing has been fixed on 9th March, 2017 as the remand report of the Assessing Officer is awaited. The affidavit states that there is nothing on record to indicate that the CIT(A) had refused to accept written submission on 8th February, 2017 as stated by the petitioner's Counsel on instructions. In particular the affidavit also mentions that the hearing before the CIT(A) is only at a preliminary stage and not at the concluding stage as pointed out to this Court on 9th February, 2017 by the petitioner. 5. The pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had accepted the directions in the impugned orders dated 28th October, 2016 and had only sought an adjournment of one month's time to begin paying installment from 31st December, 2016 rather than 30th November, 2016. Although at one time, we were of the view that as the CIT(A) had almost concluded the hearing of the appeals (as informed by the petitioner), the deposit of 15% could be kept in abeyance. However, as the same is now denied by the Revenue making it a disputed issue, we see no reason to exercise our writ jurisdiction. Moreover, the order sheets annexed to affidavit dated 2nd March, 2017 is evidence of the adjournments granted on various occasion at the request of the petitioner and also filing of an additional ground on 31st ....