- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.D. Chopra, learned counsel for the respondents. Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has already preferred appeal against the assessment order before the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeal), along with the application for interim relief. Submission of the petitioner's counsel is that the application for interim relief is pending and during the pendency of stay application, respondents are proceeding ahead to recover the dues. However, Sri D.D. Chopra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that no coercive action has been taken against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the cases reported in Siliguri Municipality. Vs. Amalendu Das, 1984 146 ITR 624 and Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa, 1983 142 ITR 663 .
(2.) There appears to be no dispute that the matter is pending before the appellate authority and in pending case, the Courts should be reluctant to pass an interim order and, in case, any order is passed that should be in terms of pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court. On the other hand, it shall always be incumbent on the appellate authority to decide the stay application expeditiously. Without giving opportunity the department has proceeded to assess the amount.
(3.) Sri D.D. Chopra learned counsel submits that no coercive action has been taken against the petitioner. There appears to be no reason to pass any order at this stage.;