On writ against the dismissal of stay application the  Court emphasized that the discretionary powers granted to the ITO under section 220(6) for handling stay demand applications should be based on four parameters: (i) the prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience, (iii) irreparable injury that may be caused to the Assessee, which cannot be compensated in terms of money, and (iv) whether the Assessee has come before the authority with clean hands. These discretionary powers must be exercised judiciously and reasonably, relying on relevant facts and circumstances, without being arbitrary or considering irrelevant or trivial facts. It is the responsibility of the authorities to consider the facts and circumstances of the case. Referred, Sant Raj v. O.P. Singla (1985) 2 SCC 349/ Reliance  Airport Developers (P) Ltd  v. Air ports Authority of India (2006) 10 SCC 1/  U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Ismail (1991) 3 SCC 239

The Court stressed that while the ITO should not function solely as a tax collector but as a quasi-judicial authority with the power to alleviate hardships for the Assessee, they should remember they are not the final authority. Appellate authorities possess plenary powers. Since the order lacked any application of mind or detailed discussion on the prima facie case of the Assessee, balance of convenience, or any hardships on the Assessee, the Court quashed and set aside the order. (AY. 2020-21)