I V R CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED; E SUDHIR REDDY; SHYAM PRASAD REDDY Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX; ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX; ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions present the same question of law, therefore, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. To appreciate the question raised in this case we refer to the facts in Writ Petn. No. 10672 of 1997 which represents the facts in other cases.

(2.) The petitioner is a public limited company carrying on the business of construction of industrial structures, power plants, spinning mills, earthquake rehabilitation projects, bridges, canals, mass housing, etc. Consequent upon the raid made on the premises of the petitioner and other persons connected with it, block assessment order was passed under s. 158BC of Chapter XIV-B of the IT Act, 1961, on 31st January, 1997. The petitioner assailed the order of assessment before the Tribunal in appeal under s. 253(1)(b) and that appeal is pending. While so, the petitioners approached the first respondent under s. 220(6) of the Act for an interim order granting stay of recovery of the tax pending disposal of the appeal in the Tribunal. The first respondent expressed his inability to deal with the matter and indicated that the power under that provision as well as under the circular of the CBDT dt. 21st August, 1969, has to be exercised by the CIT. Then the petitioner filed an application before the second respondent who passed the impugned order referred to above.

(3.) Sri P. Sreenivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, heavily relies upon the circular of the CBDT and submits that the rejection of the application in limine by the second respondent amounts to non-exercise of the jurisdiction vested in the second respondent. The order is, therefore, liable to be quashed. Sri J.V. Prasad, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, submits that the circular is confined to the exercise of the power by the authorities under s. 220(6) of the Act; where the appeal is not filed under s. 246 of the Act, the circular will not vest any powers in the CIT. Therefore, the writ petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.