Ganapathy Haridaass v. ITO (2020) 428 ITR 505/ 272 Taxman 548 (Mad)(HC)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake – Recovery of tax – Prima facie case, financial stringency and balance of convenience- Rejection of application for stay of demand in a cryptic manner is held to be not justified .[ S.220(2), 221 ]

Court held that the orders did not comply with the requirements that had been set out for disposal of stay applications. The order did not deal with the aspects of prima facie case, financial stringency and balance of convenience. The attachment of the bank account was to be lifted forthwith. The assessee was to appear without further notice in this regard and the assessing authority was to reconsider the stay application filed by the assessee in the light of the guidelines set out in circulars and instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, as well as the applications under section 154 and pass orders. Till such time, no further recovery proceedings could be initiated.( AY.2017-18)