The revenue recovered entire demand when the appeal was pending. The assessee filed writ petition contending that during pendency of her stay application under section 220(6), demand had been recovered from her and, therefore, demand recovered may be directed to be returned. High Court held that it was an admitted case of parties that demand pursuant to assessment had already been recovered, therefore, no order was required to be passed at this stage for return of amount recovered unless assessee succeeded in appeal. High Court directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of presentation of copy of the order.
Vimal Tyagi (Smt.) v. ITO (2021) 133 taxmann.com 290 (All.) (HC) Editorial : While disposing the SLP direction was issued to dispose the pending appeal expeditiously preferably with in a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order ; Vimal Tyagi (Smt.) v. ITO (2022) 284 Taxman 627 (SC)
S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-During pendency of appeal entire demand was recovered-High Court directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of presentation of copy of the order. [S. 144, 147, 220(6), Art. 226]