Tungabhadra Minerals (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2023) 291 Taxman 250 / 455 ITR 311/ 331 CTR 73/ 222 DTR 353 (Bom.)(HC) Salgaocar Mining Industries (P) Ltd v Dy. CIT (2023) 291 Taxman 250 / 455 ITR 311/ 331 CTR 73/ 222 DTR 353 (Bom.)(HC) Salitho ores (P) Ltd v Dy. CIT (2023) 291 Taxman 250 / 455 ITR 311/ 331 CTR 73/ 222 DTR 353 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Financial hardship-Rejection of application without reasoning-Remanded back to Principal Commissioner to reconsider issue and pass an appropriate order after granting an opportunity of hearing to assessee. [S. 132, Art. 226]

There was a search carried out under section 132 of the Act on the assessee. Pursuant to the search, Assessing Officer completed assessment making certain additions to income of assessee and raised a tax demand. While an appeal filed against said assessment order was pending before Commissioner (Appeals), assessee filed an application for stay of demand of tax on the ground of financial hardship. The stay application was rejected by Principal Commissioner without assigning any reasons. On challenge, the High Court held that the case of assessee on financial stringency ought to be considered by Principal Commissioner after applying his mind and giving reasons thereof. Accordingly, the High Court remanded the matter back to Principal Commissioner to reconsider issue and pass an appropriate order after granting an opportunity of hearing to assessee.  (AY. 2008-09)