JUDGMENT
BY THE COURT :
As counsel for the respondent has made appearance, in view of the short controversy arising for decision, we have heard the parties finally.
2. Rule DB.
3. The Dy. CIT Range IV passed an order of assessment against the petitioner raising a demand of Rs. 9,53,42,953 on account of income-tax and Rs. 6,81,64,603 on account of interest making a total of Rs. 16,35,07,556. The petitioner has filed an appeal against the order of assessment. The petitioner also moved an application under s. 220(6) of the Act before the AO seeking stay of the demand, so as not to treat him in default in respect of tax forming subject-matter of appeal. The AO has vide order dt. 6th March, 1997 rejected the petitioners application.
The petitioner moved an application before the CIT which has been partly allowed vide order dt. 23rd July, 1997 (Annexure-P6). The CIT directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2 crores until the disposal of the first appeal.
The petitioner has come up to this Court by filing this petition feeling aggrieved by the orders of the AO and of the CIT. Out of the several grievances raised by the petitioner, two are worth being noticed; firstly, that an amount of Rs. 78,47,380 has been deducted by way of tax at source, credit whereof has not been allowed to the petitioner while passing the impugned orders though the attention of the authorities was specifically invited to it; secondly, that the CIT (sic) has issued circulars which are published in (1989 176 ITR 240 (St) and (1991) 187 ITR (St) 79 the direction contained wherein have not been kept in view by both the authorities though the attention of both the authorities was specifically invited to this aspect as well. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on both counts there has been failure of justice and a demand has been raised against the petitioner which the petitioner would not, looking to its financial condition, be in a position to honour and that would result in denial of right of appeal to the petitioner.
4. There is substance in the contention so advanced. Prima facie from perusal of the impugned orders we are satisfied to hold that the contentions raised by the petitioner should have been disposed of by a speaking order and reasons should also have been assigned while the petitioners prayer for giving him credit to the extent of the amount of tax deducted at source was not allowed.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that ends of justice would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to dispose of the petitioners application under s. 220(6) of the Act afresh.
5. For the foregoing reasons the petition is partly allowed.
The respondent No. 2, who is the AO, shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and dispose of his application, (Annexure P-2), afresh consistently with the observations made hereinabove. We may place on record that the counsel for the petitioner has expressed willingness of the petitioner to pay the amount by instalments as pointed out by the CIT in his order dt. 23rd July, 1997 subject to credit being allowed for the amount of Rs. 78,47,380 being the amount of tax deducted at source out of Rs. 2 crores as pointed out by the CIT in his order.
6. The petition stands disposed of accordingly though without any order as to costs. CM and CW disposed of.