| Case ID |
d6e76586-c88d-4da4-9ab9-6e40e350ffb7 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 754 OF 2003 |
| Decision Date |
Jun 03, 2003 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The writ petition was allowed as the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax had not exercised his discretion judiciously under section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act. The court directed the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to decide the pending appeal expeditiously, preferably within one month, and the petitioner was not to be treated as an assessee in default. The order of attachment dated 23-5-2003 was kept in abeyance. |
| Summary |
In the case of Shivangi Steels (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, the Allahabad High Court addressed the issue of the Assistant Commissioner's refusal to stay the tax demand under section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act. The court highlighted the importance of exercising discretion judiciously, especially when an appeal is pending. The judgment reinforces the legal principle that the assessing authority must provide valid reasoning for decisions affecting taxpayers. The court's directive to expedite the hearing of the appeal ensures that taxpayers are not unduly burdened during the legal process. This case underscores the necessity for accountability and transparency in tax administration, aligning with current trends in legal practice emphasizing taxpayer rights and judicial efficiency. |
| Court |
Allahabad High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
R.K. Agarwal, J.
|
| Lawyers |
Shri Tarun Agarwala,
Shri Dhananjay Awasthi
|
| Petitioners |
Shivangi Steels (P.) Ltd.
|
| Respondents |
Assistant Commissioner of Income tax
|
| Citations |
2004 SLD 2244,
(2004) 266 ITR 62
|
| Other Citations |
Lala Hirday Narain v. ITO AIR 1971 SC [Para 3]
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
220,
220(6)
|