SURJIT AND SURINDER INVESTMENTS (P) LTD. v. INCOME TAX OFFICER
[Citation -1986-LL-0630-4]

Citation 1986-LL-0630-4
Appellant Name SURJIT AND SURINDER INVESTMENTS (P) LTD.
Respondent Name INCOME TAX OFFICER
Court ITAT
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 30/06/1986
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags investment allowance • natural justice
Bot Summary: F.C. RUSTAGI, J.M. This petition is not that of normal type which is often made by the assessee for stay of demand but this is in respect of stay sought for against the ITO who has been directed to withdraw the investment allowance amount of Rs. 7,74,186 b y an order of the CIT under s. 263, which was allowed by him in the original assessment. Counsel for the assessee Mr. D.K. Gupta submitted that perusal of t h e order of the CIT shows that he has already come to a conclusion for withdrawal and all that the ITO is to do is to follow that order. He submitted that under the inherent powers of the Tribunal, the order of the CIT be stayed and the I T O be directed not to proceed on with the withdrawal of the investment allowance as per direction of the ICT. He also submitted that against the order of the CIT, the assessee has come in appeal which is pending before the Tribunal. Senior departmental representative Mr. R.K. Bali, on the other hand, submitted that there is hardly any scope for stay and he expressed his own doubts regarding powers of the Tribunal for stay of proceedings. After perusal of record thoroughly and going through the petition as also the orders of the ITO and the CIT, we find that the CIT has directed the ITO to withdraw the amount of Rs. 7,74,186 allowed as investment allowance and recompute the income accordingly. Under the circumstances, all that the ITO is to do is to make a revised notice of demand because the CIT has almost passed an order completely withdrawing investment allowance allowed by the ITO. For the sake of natural justice and as per our inherent powers, we direct the ITO to stay the proceedings in this case till 1st Sept., 1986 be fixed in August, 1986, out of turn. Though this order is not in respect of stay of any demand but stopping the ITO from proceeding with the case in respect of investment allowance which is bound to result into creation of demand, the assessee is directed to furnish suitable security to the satisfaction of the ITO in respect of any such amount which could be levied additionally as a consequence of withdrawal of the investment allowance.


F.C. RUSTAGI, J.M. This petition is not that of normal type which is often made by assessee for stay of demand but this is in respect of stay sought for against ITO who has been directed to withdraw investment allowance amount of Rs. 7,74,186 b y order of CIT under s. 263, which was allowed by him in original assessment. ld. counsel for assessee Mr. D.K. Gupta submitted that perusal of t h e order of CIT shows that he has already come to conclusion for withdrawal and all that ITO is to do is to follow that order. He submitted that under inherent powers of Tribunal, order of CIT be stayed and I T O be directed not to proceed on with withdrawal of investment allowance as per direction of ICT. He also submitted that against order of CIT, assessee has come in appeal which is pending before Tribunal. Since it is ticklish point, once demand is created assessee would be suffering for no rhyme and reason and may result in closure of its business and cause his perfect ruin. ld. Senior departmental representative Mr. R.K. Bali, on other hand, submitted that there is hardly any scope for stay and he expressed his own doubts regarding powers of Tribunal for stay of proceedings. After perusal of record thoroughly and going through petition as also orders of ITO and CIT, we find that CIT has directed ITO to withdraw amount of Rs. 7,74,186 allowed as investment allowance and recompute income accordingly. Under circumstances, all that ITO is to do is to make revised notice of demand because CIT has almost passed order completely withdrawing investment allowance allowed by ITO. For sake of natural justice and as per our inherent powers, we direct ITO to stay proceedings in this case till 1st Sept., 1986 be fixed in August, 1986, out of turn. Though this order is not in respect of stay of any demand but stopping ITO from proceeding with case in respect of investment allowance which is bound to result into creation of demand, assessee is directed to furnish suitable security to satisfaction of ITO in respect of any such amount which could be levied additionally as consequence of withdrawal of investment allowance. M. P. allowed pro tanto. *** SURJIT AND SURINDER INVESTMENTS (P) LTD. v. INCOME TAX OFFICER
Report Error