Latest Income-Tax Details

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that though the petitioner should have been advised to prefer a stay application in a pending appeal as the necessity to file the application under s. 226 before the AO has become futile on account of the garnishee notice Ext. P5, the petitioner may be granted sufficient time to file a stay application enabling him to press for the stay before the appellate authority, in accordance with law.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Sec. 220 & 226(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 - Recovery - The ITO assessed the petitioner under the Act by rejecting the return and raised a demand of Rs. 47,35,787. The petitioner was also served with a notice under s. 142(1). The petitioner preferred an appeal. Since, the petitioner did not deposit any amount, provisions of sub-s.(3) of s. 226 of the 1962 Act was invoked by issuing a communication of garnishee. The petitioner requested for sufficient time to file a stay application enabling him to press for the stay before the appellate authority. Three weeks time to the petitioner to file the application for stay before the 2nd respondent and in case such application is filed, the 2nd respondent would decide the application for stay within one month. Till such time, communication of garnishee in question is ordered to be kept in abeyance. The writ petition stands disposed of.—SHEEJA PILLAI PROPRIETRESS vs. ITO.[2020] 26 ITCD Online 009 (KER)