High Court of Bombay in the Writ Petion (LODG.) NO. 1424 OF 2012 , JUNE 22, 2012 Filed by Balaji Universal Tradelink (P.) Ltd. held that While considering/deciding the stay application under the said Act, the authority must (i) briefly state the case of the party; (ii) consider whether the party has made out a case for unconditional stay; (iii) the financial difficulty if pleaded be considered and (iv) in case the authority concerned comes to the conclusion that by granting of stay the assessee is likely to defeat the claim of the department then brief reasons for the same be indicated. In the present case, we find that the CIT(A) has completely ignored the parameters laid down by this court in the matter of KEC International Ltd. (Supra) and has passed an order without considering all the submissions of the petitioners and also failing to point out even briefly in the Order as to why the interim payment of 50% of Rs.6.36 crores is necessary in the facts of the present case. We do not suggest that the reasons must be elaborate for the order is only on an interim application. However, brief reasons indicating the basis of a prima facie view are necessary.Thursday, October 4, 2012
AO CANNOT REJECT STAY APPLICATION WITHOUT GIVING REASON
High Court of Bombay in the Writ Petion (LODG.) NO. 1424 OF 2012 , JUNE 22, 2012 Filed by Balaji Universal Tradelink (P.) Ltd. held that While considering/deciding the stay application under the said Act, the authority must (i) briefly state the case of the party; (ii) consider whether the party has made out a case for unconditional stay; (iii) the financial difficulty if pleaded be considered and (iv) in case the authority concerned comes to the conclusion that by granting of stay the assessee is likely to defeat the claim of the department then brief reasons for the same be indicated. In the present case, we find that the CIT(A) has completely ignored the parameters laid down by this court in the matter of KEC International Ltd. (Supra) and has passed an order without considering all the submissions of the petitioners and also failing to point out even briefly in the Order as to why the interim payment of 50% of Rs.6.36 crores is necessary in the facts of the present case. We do not suggest that the reasons must be elaborate for the order is only on an interim application. However, brief reasons indicating the basis of a prima facie view are necessary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment