2020 (3) TMI 798

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ated 03.02.2020 passed by respondent No.1 rejecting the application of the petitioner for stay of demand as well as order dated 18.02.2020 passed by respondent No.2 similarly rejecting the prayer for stay of demand made by the petitioner. Further prayer made is to stay the demand till disposal of the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the order of assessment. 3. Be it stated that petitioner i.e., KEM Hospital and Seth GSM College Employees Co-operative Credit Society Limited is an association of persons running a co-operative credit society and providing credit to its members. For the assessment year 2017-18, the assessing officer i.e., Income Tax Officer-20 (3)(4), Mumbai (responde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch orders of the first appellate authority were affirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, it was contended that there was no reason for the assessing officer to take a different view in the assessment order under consideration ignoring the binding decision of the higher authorities for the earlier years. Accordingly, prayer for stay of the entire disputed demand was made. 7. Respondent No.1 by his order dated 03.02.2020 rejected the prayer of the petitioner by holding that mere filing of an appeal is not a sufficient ground for stay of the entire demand. Referring to Circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) dated 29.02.2016, petitioner was asked to pay 20% of the demand and on such payment, it was mentioned th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....India Vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Limited, 55 Excise Law Times 483 wherein Supreme Court emphasized that in disposing of the quasi-judicial issues, revenue officers are bound by the decisions of the appellate authorities. Judicial discipline requires that the order of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not 'acceptable', which itself is an objectionable phrase, can be no ground for not allowing the claim unless the decision of the appellate authority has been suspended by a competent Court. Supreme Court emphasized that if such healthy rule of judicial discipline is not followed, it would result in undue harassment t....