1993 (7) TMI 69

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessment was that the bonus paid by the assessee to its workmen was in excess of the amount permissible under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. By the order dated March 22, 1987, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment) reassessed the income of the petitioner for the assessment year 1982-83. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Varanasi. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by order dated March 24, 1988, partly allowed the appeal. The Commissioner of Income-tax allowed the claim of the petitioner regarding payment of bonus at the rate of 20 per cent. Thereafter, the Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) before....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the Department. Admittedly, the petitioner is pursuing an alternative remedy available to it by moving an application under section 256(1) of the Act before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. It is an established view of law that where a person is pursuing an alternative remedy, the High Court would not interfere in writ proceedings, as the jurisdiction exercised in writ proceedings is an extraordinary one and the powers are to be exercised in rare and exceptional cases. In view of this, we decline to interfere with the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which is impugned in this petition. It was then contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the remedy under section 256(1) of the Act is not an equally efficacious....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s to pass necessary orders in conformity with those judgments. Once it is held that the Appellate Tribunal retains its appellate power during the pendency of an application under section 256(1) or (2) of the Act, the necessary consequence is that it possesses all the incidental or ancillary powers of appellate jurisdiction. It is a well-established view of law that the power to grant stay is incidental and ancillary to the appellate jurisdiction. In view of this, where an application has been moved under section 256(1) of the Act or an application is pending under section 256(2) of the Act, the Tribunal has power to grant stay in appropriate cases. It is true that, where an application under section 256(2) of the Act is pending before the H....