PEEGEES TRUST Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the standing counsel for the Revenue.

(2.) THE order which is impugned in this batch of writ petitions has been passed by the CIT. No exception can be taken to the said orders, since admittedly the appeals are pending before the CIT (A). Therefore, there is no justification at all to stay the proceedings. This is not a fit case to continue the order of interim stay, since the appeals are pending and, therefore, no revision can be entertained at all during the pendency of the appeals.

(3.) THE balance of convenience is not in favour of the petitioner. Already the revisions have been rejected as not maintainable by recalling the earlier order, which was passed on a misconception or on a mistake of fact. The order impugned is well founded.