TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 1470
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., learned counsel appearing for respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, challenging the order, dated 10.05.2016, passed by the first respondent, whereby, the request made by the petitioner, for grant of absolute stay of the recovery proceedings, pending disposal of the Appeal Petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) filed against the assessment order, for the year 2013-14, was not granted, rather, a condition was imposed on the petitioner, requiring the petitioner to pay 15% of the demand of Rs. 78,90,583,/- and to submit a copy of the challan to the first respondent. 3. I am reminiscent of the fact that, in respect of the same assessee, for the assessment year, 2012-13, similar orders were passed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal held that the petitioner is entitled for exemption under Section 10(21) of the Act. At this stage it would be useful to refer to one such order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 26.05.2006 for the Assessment Years 1997-98: The denial of exemption by the Assessing Officer is based on the fact that the Assessee is classified as an Institution. It is the case of the Department that the Assessee-society is classified as an institution and not as an Association and as per the provisions of Section 10(21) of the Act, exemption is available only to an Association. But once the fact that the Assessee. Society is engaged in research work regarding agriculture related activi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a letter of the petitioner dated 04.06.2015 requesting for details with regard to the said appeals said to have been filed by the Department. However, it appears that the petitioner has not been favoured with any reply till date. Be that as it may, the first respondent, while considering an application under Section 220(2) of the Act, has to consider as to whether the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for the grant of absolute stay. 5. Undoubtedly, the first respondent has power to exercise his discretion. Nevertheless, such discretion should be exercised in a proper manner and should contain reasons. In the instant case, the petitioner has been able to establish that in respect of previous years, the core issue which has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court in an appeal filed by the Department before this Court. That apart, when this Court entertained the writ petition, has passed a speaking order on 23.06.2015, granting an order of interim stay. 8. Taking into consideration, the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the recovery proceedings shall remain stayed till the appeals are heard and disposed of by the second respondent. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed." 4. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, when the earlier Writ Petition was disposed of, the respondent-Department had not given any specific....