1. ' The petitioner, on being assessed to income-tax for the year 1992-93 by Exh. P-2 assessment order, filed an appeal with the third respondent in Exh. P-3 on April 5, 1995, and also filed a stay petition Exh.P-3(a) for stay of the recovery of the amount of tax covered by Exh.P-2. It is now stated that the petitioner later on April 10, 1995, filed Exh. P-4 before the Commissioner of Income-tax Ernakulam, purporting to be a petition under subsection (6) of section 220 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income-tax on the said petition passed an order Exh. P-5 directing the petitioner to pay 50 per cent. Of the demand by July 31, 1995, and the balance in five equal monthly instalments from August, 1995. The petitioner now submits that recovery proceedings have also been initiated by Exh. P-6. On receipt of the revenue recovery notice he has also filed a petition Exh.
2. P-7 before the third respondent requesting him to dispose of his appeal at an early date as any delay in the said disposal will cause prejudice.
3. ' I have heard counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel for the Income-tax Department and perused the records. In my view, the order Exh.P-5 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax is one without jurisdiction. It is not in dispute that the petitioner filed a petition under subsection (6) of section 220 requesting the Commissioner of Income-tax not to treat him as a defaulter and on that request Exh. P-5 came to be passed. A reading of subsection (6) of section 220 will show that the discretion to be exercised under the said subsection can only be exercised by the Assessing Officer and not by the Commissioner of Income-tax. As the order was passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax without jurisdiction, I am of the view that the order Exh. P-5 has to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside.
4. ' Counsel for the petitioner now submits that though he has filed the appeal on April 5, 1995, and also the stay petition on the same day, they were not disposed of by the appellate authority, the third respondent herein, and in the meantime revenue recovery proceedings have also been initiated against him. He further submits that in spite of his request made to the appellate authority by Exh. P-7 to dispose of his appeal, the appeal is not taken up and no orders on the stay petition are also passed. He submits that he has a fair chance of success in the appeal and if the revenue recovery proceedings are allowed to continue without even the stay petition being disposed of, it will cause irreparable damage and harm to the cause of the petitioner. I see some force in the contention of the petitioner.
5. ' On the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that there can be a direction to the third respondent to dispose of the stay petition filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and till the disposal of the said stay petition, the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the recovery of the tax covered by Exh. P-2 will stand stayed.
6. ' This original petition is disposed of with the above directions.