R.K.Agarwal, J. - (1.) The contention of the petitioner is that he has filed an appeal against the block assessment order, which is pending before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Agra, respondent No. 2. An application filed under Section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Agra, respondent No. 1, after a period of more than one year, on the ground that more than a year has passed and he had not deposited the amount and therefore the demand cannot be stayed.
(2.) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself without inviting counter-affidavit in accordance with the rules of court.
(3.) I have heard Shri Tarun Agarwala, counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned standing counsel for the respondents. Section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act gives a discretion to the assessing authority to treat an assessee as not being in default in respect of the amount in dispute in the appeal even though the time for payment has expired long back but the appeal has remained undisposed of. The discretion conferred under Section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act has to be exercised in accordance with law. The Supreme Court in the case of L. Hirday Narain v. ITO [1970] 78 ITR 26 ; AIR 1971 SC 33, had held that the discretion which has been conferred on the income-tax authorities has to be exercised judiciously. In the present case a perusal of the impugned order shows that discretion which has been exercised by respondent No. 1 in rejecting the application, does not give any reason nor has it been exercised judiciously. In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.;