Case Law Details
First Petitioner has fulfilled the requirement of Clauses (a) and (d) of Section 11(1). The appeal filed by the First Petitioner is pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). It is evident that the First Petitioner has continuously received the benefit of exemption upto Assessment Year 2008-09, a position which is now sought to be altered for the first time in Assessment Year 2009-10.
Every Assessment Year constitutes a unit in itself and the principles of res¬judicata do not strictly apply. Equally, it has been held by the Supreme Court that when a fundamental basis permeates through the case of the Assessee, that would certainly be a relevant matter which has to be borne in mind by the Assessing Officer.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the view that the First Petitioner does have serious issues to be urged before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in appeal. This is a case where the Assessing Officer while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 220(6) and the Director of Income Tax ought to have granted a complete stay of demand. The Assessee has highlighted the nature of its activities in several applications filed in support of the plea for stay and also explained its financial position. None of this has been taken into account while disposing of the application for stay.
Accordingly, we quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 9 March 2012 and 14 March 2012 and direct that pending the disposal of the appeal filed by the Assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), there shall be a stay of demand and no coercive steps shall be taken against the Assessee for the recovery of the demand in the amount of Rs.1.56 Crores.
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
