Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Surjit And Surinder Investments (P.) ... vs Income-Tax Officer on 30 June, 1986
Equivalent citations: [1986]19ITD286(CHD)
ORDER
F.C. Rustagi, Judicial Member
1. 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 by an order of the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which was allowed by him in the original assessment.
2. The learned counsel for the assessee Mr. D.K. Gupta submitted that perusal of the order of the Commissioner 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 Commissioner be stayed and the ITO be directed not to proceed on with the withdrawal of the investment allowance as per direction of the Commissioner. He also submitted that against the order of the Commissioner the assessee has come in appeal which is pending before the Tribunal. Since it is a ticklish point once a demand is created the assessee would be suffering for no rhyme and reason and may result in closure of its business and cause his perfect ruin. The learned 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 such proceedings.
3. After perusal 'of record thoroughly and going through the petition as also the orders of the ITO and the Commissioner, we find that the Commissioner 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 Commissioner 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 1-9-1986. We also hereby order that the assessee's appeal being IT Appeal No. 425 (Chd.) of 1986 filed on 28-4-1986 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.
4. Miscellaneous petition allowed pro tanto.