In the instantcaseappeal filed has not been taken up rather the interim application, in such circumstances availed the remedy under Sec.220(6) 1961 Act, which resulted into impugned order Ext.P7, I am of the view that, the order prima facie do not reflect any application of mind except reference to the contentions. The officers who are competent to pass orders, are enjoined obligations to pass reasoned orders, which, according to the affected party, may not be sustainable in accordance with law. But such orders, if are passed in routine, cannot escape from the judicial scrutiny of this court. Be that as it may, in order to prevent further mis-carriage of justice and in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate issuing directions to the 2nd respondent to take a call on the application for interim stay in support of the appeal Ext.P5 and take a decision thereon after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law, un-influenced by the findings referred to Ext.P7. Until such time the demand as raised Ext.P8 is ordered to be kept in abeyance. Let this exercise be taken within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the interim stay shall be only till the adjudication of the interim application and not beyond. The writ petition in the above mentioned directions stands disposed of.
Sec. 220, 226 of Income Tax Act, 1961—Recovery - Against the demand order in Ext.P3 and penalty notice Ext.P4 under Sec.274 read with Sec.270A, the petitioner preferred statutory first appeal vide Ext.P5 against the assessment order before the CIT(A) along with a stay application. Since the provisions of the Income Tax also enable the petitioner to seek the demand of the assessment as per the provisions of Section 220(6) of the Act, an application in this regard was also preferred before the ITO, which resulted into order impugned Ext.P7. The petitioner/assessee submits that the order sans any reason and despite the demand has been stayed subject to the condition of deposit of 20% of the demanded amount, which is reflected from the notice dated 06.03.2020 Ext.P8. Though the Act provides availment of remedies as noticed above, since the CIT(A) is taking up the appeals year-wise i.e as per the seniority, the stay application filed along with it are also not taken out of turn. It is in that circumstances, the remedy of Sec.220(6) of the IT Act, 1961 was availed. Writ petition disposed of issuing directions to the 2nd respondent to take a call on the application for interim stay in support of the appeal Ext.P5 and take a decision thereon after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law, un-influenced by the findings referred to Ext.P7. Until such time the demand as raised Ext.P8 is ordered to be kept in abeyance. - PRAVEEN SIDHARTHAN PILLAI V/s ITO - [2020] 23 ITCD Online 099 (KER)
In the instantcaseappeal filed has not been taken up rather the interim application, in such circumstances availed the remedy under Sec.220(6) 1961 Act, which resulted into impugned order Ext.P7, I am of the view that, the order prima facie do not reflect any application of mind except reference to the contentions. The officers who are competent to pass orders, are enjoined obligations to pass reasoned orders, which, according to the affected party, may not be sustainable in accordance with law. But such orders, if are passed in routine, cannot escape from the judicial scrutiny of this court. Be that as it may, in order to prevent further mis-carriage of justice and in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate issuing directions to the 2nd respondent to take a call on the application for interim stay in support of the appeal Ext.P5 and take a decision thereon after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law, un-influenced by the findings referred to Ext.P7. Until such time the demand as raised Ext.P8 is ordered to be kept in abeyance. Let this exercise be taken within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the interim stay shall be only till the adjudication of the interim application and not beyond. The writ petition in the above mentioned directions stands disposed of.
Sec. 220, 226 of Income Tax Act, 1961—Recovery - Against the demand order in Ext.P3 and penalty notice Ext.P4 under Sec.274 read with Sec.270A, the petitioner preferred statutory first appeal vide Ext.P5 against the assessment order before the CIT(A) along with a stay application. Since the provisions of the Income Tax also enable the petitioner to seek the demand of the assessment as per the provisions of Section 220(6) of the Act, an application in this regard was also preferred before the ITO, which resulted into order impugned Ext.P7. The petitioner/assessee submits that the order sans any reason and despite the demand has been stayed subject to the condition of deposit of 20% of the demanded amount, which is reflected from the notice dated 06.03.2020 Ext.P8. Though the Act provides availment of remedies as noticed above, since the CIT(A) is taking up the appeals year-wise i.e as per the seniority, the stay application filed along with it are also not taken out of turn. It is in that circumstances, the remedy of Sec.220(6) of the IT Act, 1961 was availed. Writ petition disposed of issuing directions to the 2nd respondent to take a call on the application for interim stay in support of the appeal Ext.P5 and take a decision thereon after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law, un-influenced by the findings referred to Ext.P7. Until such time the demand as raised Ext.P8 is ordered to be kept in abeyance. - PRAVEEN SIDHARTHAN PILLAI V/s ITO - [2020] 23 ITCD Online 099 (KER)