CPT V24P7-Art1 (Content).pmd - Taxmann

Direct Tax Laws
644
assessees within the State of Rajasthan
also, would entertain stay applications
filed before them during the pendency of
appeals and would decide the same on
their own merits in future also. The
assessing authorities will also decide
applications under section 220(6) of the
Act in accordance with Instruction No.
96, dated 21-8-1969 and observations made
hereinbefore”.
10. THE CONCLUDING COMMENTS
10.1 CBDT should issue fresh instructions to
CIT(A) on stay of demands - CIT(A), for
administrative purposes, are under the control
of the CBDT. The CBDT decides their jurisdiction,
quota of work, leave, posting, transfer, etc.,
even issues instructions to them to dispose of
high demand appeals, promptly on priority
basis. Hence, there could be no objection in
issuing instructions to CIT(A) regarding disposal
of application of assessees for stay of demands
during the pendency of appeals. In CIT v. Lala
Rajeshwar Prasad [1956] 29 ITR 792 (Punj. &
Har.), it has been observed that an order passed
by the AO granting extension of time for payment
of tax or instalments or stay of payment till
a particular date is an administrative or executive
order – not a judicial or quasi-judicial order.
The same view can apply in disposal of
applications for stay of demands by the CIT(A).
• DT - Secs. 119(2), 220(6) & 281B.
August 1 to 15, 2012 u TAXMANN’S CORPORATE PROFESSIONALS TODAY u Vol. 24 u 24
10.2 During pendency of appeals no coercive
action should be taken against taxpayers -
The CBDT, instead of ignoring the directions
of two High Courts and in realization of the
hardships faced by the taxpayers, when the
AOs press for payment of demands which are
highly disputed and attach their properties,
bank accounts, etc., should issue guidelines/
instructions to the CIT(A) to pass orders for
the applications received for the stay of demands
expeditiously preferably within one month of
the receipt thereof. During the pendency of
such applications with the CIT(A), no coercive
action should be taken by the AOs against the
taxpayers. The applications to the CIT(A) should
lie only in cases where the AO rejects it or
gives only partial relief.
10.3 Not following Court’s instructions would
tantamount to discrimination against taxpayers -
It looks incongruous that the CBDT is trusting
its junior officers/AOs for stay of demand
orders, but not its senior officers like the
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). This
incongruity needs to end immediately, more
so when High Courts have clarified the legal
position and two of them have issued directions
to the CBDT for issue of instructions/guidelines.
Rajasthan HC even directed the CIT(A) to
entertain such applications. Not doing so would
mean contempt of Court. Doing so, would
tantamount to discrimination against millions
of taxpayers in other States.
•••