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. |