2020 (3) TMI 1084

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....shing of orders dated 12th February, 2020 passed by respondent No.1 rejecting the application for stay of demand of the petitioner as well as order dated 21st February, 2020 passed by respondent No.2 also rejecting the application for stay of the petitioner and further seeking a stay of recovery of demand by the respondents till disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the order of assessment.   3. Shorn of details, it may be mentioned that respondent No.1 as the Assessing Officer passed assessment order dated 28th December, 2019 in respect of the petitioner for the assessment year 2014-15 under Section 143(3) r/w Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly "the Act"....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ich event it was stated that the outstanding demand would be stayed. 7. Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred further stay petition dated 14th February, 2020 before respondent No.2. By order dated 21st February, 2020, respondent No.2 directed the petitioner to pay atleast 5% of the total outstanding demand as per the schedule mentioned therein subject to which it was stated that the demand would be stayed. 8. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed. 9. Mr.Mistri, learned senior counsel has referred to Section 194B of the Act and submits that petitioner is only providing a platform for playing of card games by the users. In terms of Section 194B of the Act, petitioner has been deducting income tax at the prescribed rate for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., that will be a relevant consideration in deciding the application for stay. This aspect of the matter was completely overlooked by respondent Nos.1 and 2 while dealing with the stay application of the petitioner. 10. On the other hand, Mr.Sharma, learned standing counsel, Revenue submits that respondent No.2 has fairly considered the stay application of the petitioner and against the total outstanding demand he has directed petitioner to pay only 5% of the demand that too in three installments. That apart, petitioner has already moved the first appellate authority in appeal. It is open to the petitioner to pray for stay before the appellate authority. In the circumstances, question of interference by the court does not arise. 11. Su....