TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (10) TMI 54
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by A.K. SIKRI, J. - The Petitioner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, a Government company and, therefore, it is not in dispute that assessee is also a Government undertaking. It is engaged in the business of exploration, development and production of hydrocarbons outside India to augment the oil security of Indi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d with the penalty proceedings and passed orders dated 30th September, 2009 levying a penalty of Rs.114.19 crore on the Petitioner company based on the additions confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) in the quantum appeal. This appeal was filed on 23rd April, 2009, however, that appeal was not being heard so far. 5. The Petitioner also approached to the Respondent No.1 seeking stay of the demand of pen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to the Petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax which inter alia reads as:- "No further stay in this respect can not be granted. You are requested to make the payment of the demand of Rs.114.20 crore along with the interest u/s 220(2) of the IT Act within 7 days and show me the proof of payment of the same." 7. It is obvious that no reasons are given while declining the request of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that till the application dated 13th October, 2009 filed by the Petitioner before the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax-13, New Delhi is decided, no coercive steps be taken by the Respondents for recovery of the amount due. 9. Further having regard to the fact that the appeal against the penalty proceedings was filed by the Petitioner on 23rd April, 2009, we feel that the same should also be....