HITECH OUTSOURCING SERVICES Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.Nitin Mehta, learned counsel appears for respondents no.1 to 3 and waives notice. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard.

(2.) The only question arise for consideration in the present matter is "Whether the order below the stay application could be passed by respondent no.2 without recording any reasons or not?"

(3.) The relevant facts show that after the AO passed the order of assessment and made the demand of tax of Rs.2,07,55,490/for the assessment year 20112012, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) contending inter alia that it was only a typographical error for claiming the benefit under section 10A, though wrongly typed as 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the "Act"). It is also not in dispute that the petitioner preferred stay application. However, below stay application, vide order dated 25.08.2014 (Annexure D), the said stay application has been initially granted on the condition to furnish the bank guarantee, but subsequently, as the bank guarantee was not furnished, the application is dismissed. Under the circumstances, the present petition before this Court.