CIT(A) cannot grant conditional stay without giving reason for such conditions

Shyla Pushpan Vs CIT (Kerala High Court) The contention of the petitioner is essentially that, in Ext.P9 order, there is no mention of any reason as to why the Appellate Authority i.e. CIT (A) in this case, deemed it necessary for the petitioners to pay 20% of the total demand, as a condition for stay of the balance 80% of the demand arising from the assessment order during the pendency of the appeal. The petitioners rely on the decision of this Court in Archana Agencies v. Commercial Tax Officer – [2014 (2) KLT 715]. High Court state that the order was a laconic one bereft of any reason...