Anand Palanisami v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 1 Coimbatore

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10.02.2016CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY W.P.Nos.4460 to 4462 and 4905 to 4910 of 2016 andW.M.P.Nos.3781 to 3783 & 4254 to 4259 of 2016 Anand Palanisami ...Petitioner in WPs.4460 to 4462/16A.Vijayalakshmi ...Petitioner in WPs.4905 to 4910/16 Vs. 1. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 Coimbatore 2. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2, Investigation Wing No.46, Mahatma Gandhi Road Chennai 34 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18 Central Circle Nungambakkam Chennai – 600 034 ... Respondents in all WPs Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, Calling forthe records on the file of the 2nd respondent in i) PAN No. and quash the impugned order inC.No. 2802/C-2/2015-16/2 dated 29.01.2016 passed by the 2ndrespondent rejecting the stay petition for the AY 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 respectively (In WPs.4460 to 4462 of 2016) ii) PAN No. and quash the impugned order inC.No.2802/c-2/2015-16/1 dated 29.01.2016 passed by the SecondRespondent rejecting the stay petition for the AY 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively (In WPs.4905 to 4910 of 2016) and direct the 2nd respondent to grant stay of demandhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/pending disposal of the appeal before the 3rd respondent. COMMON ORDER Writ Petition Nos.4460 to 4462 of 2016 have been filedby the petitioner to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus tocall for the records on the file of the second respondent inPAN. No. AFJPA4713N and to quash the impugned order inC.No.2802/C-2/2015-16/2, dated 29.1.2016 passed by the secondrespondent rejecting the stay petition for the assessment years2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 and direct the second respondentto grant stay of demand pending disposal of the appeal beforethe third respondent. 2. Similarly, Writ Petition Nos. 4905 to 4910 of 2016have been filed by the petitioner to issue a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file ofthe second respondent in PAN. No. and to quash theimpugned order in C.No.2802/C-2/2015-16/1, dated 29.1.2016passed by the second respondent rejecting the stay petition forthe assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 and direct the second respondent to grant stayof demand pending disposal of the appeal before the thirdrespondent. 3. After making elaborate submissions, Mr.R.Sivaraman,learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted thatthe respondents had already attached the immovable propertiesbelonging to the petitioners and therefore, the respondents maybe directed to complete the adjudication, within a time frame. 4. Mr.Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned Standing Counselappearing for the respondents, on instructions, submittedthat the third respondent may require a year's time forcompleting the adjudication for the reason that the thirdrespondent has to peruse the entire documents produced by thepetitioners. 5. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitionerssubmitted that a shorter time may be fixed for completing theadjudication for the reason that the petitioners are put tohardship, since their properties were attached by therespondents. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learnedcounsel on either side, without expressing any opinion withhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/regard to the merits of the case, I direct the thirdrespondent to complete the adjudication, within a periodof eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of this 5. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitionerssubmitted that a shorter time may be fixed for completing theadjudication for the reason that the petitioners are put tohardship, since their properties were attached by therespondents. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learnedcounsel on either side, without expressing any opinion withhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/regard to the merits of the case, I direct the thirdrespondent to complete the adjudication, within a periodof eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to say that the petitioners should co-operate with the third respondent for completing theadjudication within the time stipulated by this court. With these observations, the writ petitions are disposedof. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitionsare closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarRjTo1. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 Coimbatore2. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2, Investigation Wing No.46, Mahatma Gandhi Road Chennai 343. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18 Central Circle Nungambakkam Chennai – 600 034 +2cc's to Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda, Advocate, S.R.Nos.8475 & 8477+2cc's to Mr.R.Sivaraman, Advocate, S.R.Nos.8930 & 8931 W.P.Nos.4460 to 4462 and 4905 to 4910 of 2016andW.M.P.Nos.3781 to 3783 &4254 to 4259 of 2016 RSI(CO)CA(03/03/2016) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/