Allowing the petition the Court held that the orders passed under section 201(1) / 201(1A) were non-reasoned orders. Neither the Assessing Officer nor the Commissioner (IT) had considered the three basic principles, i.e., the prima facie case, the balance of convenience and irreparable injury while deciding the stay applications. Consequently, the orders and notices were set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication in the application for stay. Before deciding on the stay application, the Commissioner (IT) should grant a personal hearing to the assessee. Until the stay application filed by the assessee was decided, no coercive action should be taken by the authorities in pursuance of the demand. Referred PCIT v. Electronics India Pvt Ltd. [2018] 12 ITR-OL 334 (SC) (WP (C) No. 4660 of 2022 dt 23-3-2022)
Tata Teleservices Ltd. v. CIT(IT) (2023) 451 ITR 328 (Delhi)(HC)
S 226 : Collection and recovery-Modes of recovery-Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-Deduction of tax at source-Failure to consider prima facie case-Payment of 20 per cent. of disputed tax demand is not a prerequisite for a stay of demand-Order set aside and matter remanded to Commissioner (IT) to consider afresh [S. 201(1), 201(IA), 246A, Art. 226]