Susanta Chatterji, J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed by Messrs. Dunlop India Limited, an existing public company, challenging 3 (three) impugned orders contained in the letters dated February 16, 1990, written by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-XXI, Calcutta, who is impleaded as respondent No. 1. It is alleged that under Section 220(3) and/or under Section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act, a discretionary power has been conferred upon respondent No. 1 either to extend the time for making the payment of tax or to grant stay of realisation of demand till the disposal of the appeals, and the said discretion has to be exercised judicially and it will be apparent that respondent No. 1 has not considered all relevant factors and the impugned orders are illegal, invalid and inoperative.
(2.) The present case has a chequered background indeed. In 1983, the petitioner moved a writ petition challenging the provisions of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and a rule was issued and an interim order was granted. Section 43B was inserted by Section 18 of the Finance Act, 1983, with effect from April 1, 1984. The interim order was modified to the extent that assessment proceedings may be concluded by considering Section 43B and a final order may be passed but the same was not to be communicated to the petitioner nor enforced till the disposal of the rule. However, the rule was finally discharged and all interim orders were vacated. The petitioner preferred an appeal and the appeal court did not pass any interim order. The petitioner, however, filed 3 (three) grounds of appeal for the assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87. The said appeals are alleged to be pending. The petitioner also made an application before the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi, for waiver of interest under Rule 40 and for a direction to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for treating the assessee as not in default. The appeals are being heard as stated. The petitioner made 3 (three) separate applications for stay of realisation of the demand till the disposal of the appeals and the same were disposed of by the impugned orders passed by respondent No. 1 under Section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act.
(3.) Section 220(6) envisages, inter alia, that : "Where an assessee has presented an appeal under Section 246, the Income-tax Officer may, in his discretion, and subject to such conditions as he may think fit to impose in the circumstances of the case, treat the asses-see as not being in default in respect of the amount in dispute in the appeal, even though the time for payment has expired, as long as such appeal remains undisposed of.";