Case LawHigh Court › Arihant Motors Rep. By Its v. The Income...

Arihant Motors Rep. By Its v. The Income Tax Officer Non Corp Ward 10(1)

High Court 03 Sep 2020 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
Arihant Motors Rep. By Its v. The Income Tax Officer Non Corp Ward 10(1)
Date of order
03 Sep 2020
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Arihant Motors Rep. By Its v. The Income Tax Officer Non Corp Ward 10(1), the High Court (2020) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

DATED: 03.09.2020 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH W.P. No.4457 of 2020and WMP.No.5278 of 2020 Arihant Motors Rep. by its Partner Ajithkumar No. 1/ 230 GNT Bypass Road Redhills Chennai 600052. .. Petitioner Vs. The Income Tax Officer Non Corp Ward 10(1) No. 6 Greams Road BSNL Building Chennai 600 006. .. Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying Writ of Certiorari to call for therecords on the file of the respondent in DIN and Letter No.ITBA/ COM/ F/ 17/ 2019-20/ 1024866461(1) dated 07.02.2020 andquash the same. For Petitioner : Mr. S.Selvathirumurugan For Respondent : Mr.Prabhu Mukund Arun Kumar Junior Standing Counsel O R D E R Mr.Selvathirumurugan, learned counsel for the petitionertoday fairly admits that the conditional order passed by thisCourt on 23.07.2020 has not been complied with. 1 2. Moreover, it is seen that the petitioner has filed anappeal challenging the order of assessment under the provisionsof the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 24.12.2019 for the assessmentyear 2017-18 before the first Appellate Authority. Impugnedorder dated 07.02.2020 rejects the stay application filed by thepetitioner after taking into account the prima facie case aswell as financial stringency. The Officer has specificallyreferred to the financial statements in coming to the conclusionthat the petitioner has not made out a case for financialdifficulty to pay the demand. The application was thusdismissed and the petitioner called upon to remit the entireamount. 3. No case is made out for interference with the impugnedorder, particularly since the benefit extended to the petitionerto remit 25% of the disputed demand was also not availed. 4. In the light of the aforesaid, this Writ Petition isdismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions arealso dismissed. -s/d- Assistant Registrar True CopySub-Assistant RegistrarslToThe Income Tax Officer Non Corp Ward 10(1) No. 6 Greams Road BSNL Building Chennai 600 006. W.P. No.4457 of 2020and WMP.No.5278 of 2020 mg(co)aa21/10/2020 2
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan