(Per : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA) By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"] has challenged order dated March 9, 2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-5, Ahmedabad, by which he disposed of an application for stay of demand during the pendency of an appeal before the Commissioner of Income [Appeals] ["CIT [Appeals]" ].
It appears from the record that the total demand raised was Rs.15,79,48,160/-. By the order impugned in this application, the concerned officer has stayed 50% of the total demand amounting to Rs. 7,89,74,080/- with further direction that the balance amount should be paid by two equal installments, the first of which should be paid by March 15, 2012 and the other one by March 21, 2012.
Being dissatisfied, the assessee has come up with the present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we are of the view that the main appeal against the order of assessment being pending before the CIT [Appeals], at this stage, we should not enter into the merit of the appeal. Our jurisdiction is restricted only to consider whether during pendency of the appeal, the authority below has exercised its jurisdiction judicially in staying the demand to the extent of 50%.
We have gone through the order impugned as well as the original order of assessment and on consideration of the entire materials on record, we are unable to hold that the exercise of jurisdiction was arbitrary or malafide so as to interfere with the discretion within the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
It is now settled law that while disposing of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against this type of matter where the authority vested with jurisdiction has exercised jurisdiction, simply because from the selfsame material, this Court can arrive at a different conclusion, such fact cannot be a ground for interference. This Court can interfere only when it appears that while exercising jurisdiction, the authority below has not followed the well accepted principles which are required to be followed in this type of cases or where no reasonable individual on the facts of the present case could have come to the decision arrived at by the authority. In other words, the discretion exercised by the authority should be shown to be "clearly wrong".
In the case before us, we are unable to hold that the discretion exercised by the authority below is so vitiated.
In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order impugned. We have taken into consideration the question of hardship of the petitioner as well as the question of securing revenue. On balance of those materials, we are of the view that this is a fit case where we should not interfere.
However, having regard to the fact that for the interim order passed by this Court, the time for deposit of the first installment has already expired, we extend the same by March 31, 2012 with further direction that the second installment should be paid by April 30, 2012. The application is thus, disposed of. No costs.
[BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, ACTING CJ.] [J.B.PARDIWALA, J.] pirzada/-
Top