Madhya Pradesh High Court
Air Transport Co. (Regd.) vs Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal And Ors. on 23 February, 1993
Equivalent citations: [1994]207ITR487(MP)
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission.
2. By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated January 29, 1993, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, dismissing the petitioner's application for stay and even while dismissing the application directed the appeal to be heard in April, 1993.
3. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this court praying for direction that the Tribunal should consider the petitioner's application afresh and pass appropriate orders staying recovery of the enforcement of demand till the disposal of the matter by the Tribunal.
4. Strong reliance has been placed by learned counsel on a decision as reported in [1971] ITR 851 (ITO v. M.K. Mohammad Kunhi [1969] 71 ITR 815 (SC) (?)). It was on the basis of this judgment that it was contended that when the matter is almost covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court which was brought to the notice of the Tribunal, the impugned order suffers from basic infirmity.
5. Grant of stay pending disposal of appeal is essentially a discretionary matter and it needs to be noted that even while dismissing the application for interim stay the Tribunal has directed to expedite the hearing of the appeal which is to be fixed in the month of April, 1993.
6. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction in such matters is neither proper nor desirable. The judgment which has been relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner itself is distinguishable and at any rate is not an authority for the proposition that the extraordinary powers of this court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution can be invoked in such discretionary matters like stay.
7. Learned counsel placed before us an interim order, a photostat copy of which is dated April 24, 1992, passed in M. P. No. 689 of 1992 admitting the said petition and directing notice of application for stay, in the meanwhile staying operation of the impugned order, annexure P-2, in the said petition.
8. Firstly, such an order cannot be cited as a precedent. Secondly, we do not have the facts as to the nature of the challenge whether it was a petition directing against the order refusing to stay of recovery proceeding pending appeal. There is no such indication in the order placed before us by the petitioner.
9. For the foregoing reasons this petition is dismissed summarily without notice.