JAGADISH N. HINDUJA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI . M.V. Seshachala, learned standing counsel is directed to take notice for the respondents.

(2.) THE assessee has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge who declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground that the assessee is at liberty to approach the CIT (Administration).

(3.) ANNEXURE F is the order passed by the first respondent wherein it held that the appeal is always against an order and it is in a way a review of an order of a lower authority by a higher authority and there is no order of rejection of any stay application. The appellant has put the cart before the horse by making an application for stay of demand without filing any petition before the AO. He therefore held that he had no authority to admit such petition or appeal and dismissed the same. A reliance was also placed on a judgment in the case of Mrs. R. Mani Goyal vs. CIT (1996) 131 CTR (All) 274 : (1996) 217 ITR 641 (All) and also the circular of CBDT dt. 3rd April, 1992 (sic) and declined to grant the stay.