AGK AGK AGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8143 OF 2008 Sinhgad Technical Education Society ..Petitioner V/s. Mr.P.L. Pathade, Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax & Others ..Respondents Mr.Mr.Jamshed Mistry i/by Mr.Nitin Dhumal for the petitioner. Mr.Vimal Gupta for the respondents. CORAM : P.B. MAJMUDAR & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 16TH DECEMBER, 2008 P.C. : 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Pune, copy of which is annexed at Page 239, by which the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Pune while entertaining the stay application of the petitioner has directed the assessee to pay 10% of the demand for A.Y. 2005-06 by 15-11-2008 and the petitioner was directed to produce challan for verification of the Commissioner. Subsequently, there is a corrigendum, copy of which is annexed at Page 242, by which the assessee is directed to pay 10% of the demand for A.Y. 2005-06 by 15-11-2008. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that when the stay application is pending before the CIT (Appeals), it was not necessary to direct the assessee to pay 10% of the demand for A.Y. 2005-06. Learned counsel Mr.Gupta appearing for the department states that he has no objection, if direction is given to the CIT (Appeals) to decide the stay application at the earliest. He submits that however attachment of concerned bank account should be allowed to continue and liberty be granted to the Petitioner to operate the account for day-to-day routine expenditure in the nature of payment of salary to the staff, if so necessary. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties. 3. In our view, when the stay application is still pending, it is just and proper to direct the CIT (Appeals) to dispose of said application after hearing the petitioner at the earliest and in any case latest by 12-1-2009. Till the stay application is disposed of, no further coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner - institution and though the attachment of the bank account is continued in favour of the revenue, the petitioner is permitted to operate the account to meet with day-to-day expenditure and for the purpose of salary to the staff. Except the same the assessee is not permitted to operate the account for any other expenditure. This is only a tentative arrangement till the stay application is decided. 4. It is for the authority to decide the Appeal along with stay application, if it so desires. It is clarified that we are not expressing any opinion on the main issue and it is for the authority to decide the stay application on its own merits and after considering the evidence on record. 5. Subject to what is stated above, the writ petition is disposed of. (P.B. Majmudar, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)