Bai Ratan v. M/S.indian Overseas Bank, Sowcarpet Branch

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 19.03.2019CORAM : THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTHW.P.Nos.7764, 7773, 7778, 7787, 7789 & 7790 of 2019andW.M.P.Nos.8397, 8399, 8401 to 8404, 8406, 8408, 8415, 8418,8419, 8421, 8423, 8425 to 8435 of 2019 KISHORE KUMAR,S/O.PUKHRAJJI,NO.16, NSC BOSE ROAD,SOWCARPET,CHENNAI 600 079.... Petitionerin W.P.No.7764 of 2019 SHANU JAIN, W/O.PRASHANT KIRAN,65, NSC BOSE ROAD, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI - 600 079. ... PETITIONER in WP No.7773 of 2019 PRASHANT KIRAN, S/O.ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, 65, NSC BOSE ROAD, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI - 600 079. ... PETITIONER in WP No.7778 of 2019 BHAWESH KIRAN, S/O.ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, 65, NSC BOSE ROAD SOWCARPET, CHENNAI - 600 079. ... PETITIONER in WP No.7787 of 2019 ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, S/O.PUKHRAJJI, 60-A, MARUTHI COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, NARASIMHADASAI LANE, NSC BOSE ROAD, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI - 600 079. ... PETITIONER in WP No.7789 of 2019 BAI RATAN, W/O.ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, 65, NSC BOSE ROAD, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI - 600 079. ... PETITIONER in WP No.7790 of 2019Vs.1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-(1)3, INVESTIGATION WING, ROOM NO.312, NEW NO.46, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM,CHENNAI - 600 034.2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-18, 121, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 034.3 M/S.HDFC BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, NO.68, GROUND FLOOR, MINT STREET,SOWCARPET, CHENNAI - 600 079. 4 M/S.INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, SOWCARPET BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, DAVEY COMPLEX, FIRST FLOOR, 143, NSC BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 079. .. Respondents in WP.NO.7764, 7787, 7789 of 2019 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-(1)3, INVESTIGATION WING, ROOM NO.312, NEW NO.46, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM,CHENNAI - 600 034.2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-18, 121, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 034.3 M/S.INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, SOWCARPET BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, DAVEY COMPLEX, FIRST FLOOR, 143, NSC BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 079. .. Respondents in WP.NO.7773, 7790 of 2019 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-(1)3, INVESTIGATION WING, ROOM NO.312, NEW NO.46, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM,CHENNAI - 600 034.2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-18, 121, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 034.3 M/S.HDFC BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, NO.68, GROUND FLOOR, MINT STREET,SOWCARPET, CHENNAI - 600 079. .. Respondents in WP.NO.7778 of 2019 PRAYERS:-W.P.No.7764 of 2019:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,calling for the records on the file of the 1[st] respondent inPAN:AAKPK1942R in passing the impugned order in F.No.:CC-1(3)/AAKPK1942R/2018-19 dated 19.02.2019 along with impugned noticesin AAKPK1942R/2018-19 dated 07.02.2019 issued to the 3[rd] and 4[th]respondents and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and devoidof merit and consequentially direct the 1[st] respondent to grantstay of all further recovery proceedings pertaining to the AY2011-12 pending disposal of the appeal preferred by thePetitioner before the 2[nd] respondent. .. Respondents in WP.NO.7778 of 2019 PRAYERS:-W.P.No.7764 of 2019:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,calling for the records on the file of the 1[st] respondent inPAN:AAKPK1942R in passing the impugned order in F.No.:CC-1(3)/AAKPK1942R/2018-19 dated 19.02.2019 along with impugned noticesin AAKPK1942R/2018-19 dated 07.02.2019 issued to the 3[rd] and 4[th]respondents and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and devoidof merit and consequentially direct the 1[st] respondent to grantstay of all further recovery proceedings pertaining to the AY2011-12 pending disposal of the appeal preferred by thePetitioner before the 2[nd] respondent. WP No.7773 of 2019:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or anyother appropriate writ application or order Article 226 of theConstitution of India Calling for the records on the file of the1st respondent in PAN. in passing the impugned orderin F.No.CC-1(3)/ /2018-19 dated 19.02.2019 along withimpugned notices in AFUPJ5665F/2018-19 dated 07.02.2019 issuedto the 3rd respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitraryand devoid of merit and consequentially direct the 1strespondent to grant stay of all further recovery proceedingspertaining to the AY 2013-14 pending disposal of the appealpreferred by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. WP No.7778 of 2019:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or anyother appropriate writ application or order Article 226 of theConstitution of India Calling for the records on the file of the1st respondent in PAN. in passing the impugned orderin F.No.CC-1(3)/ /2018-19 dated 19.02.2019 along withimpugned notices in AAGPP6135R/2018-19 dated 07.02.2019 issuedto the 3rd and 4th respondents and quash the same as illegal,arbitrary and devoid of merit and consequentially direct the 1strespondent to grant stay of all further recovery proceedingspertaining to the AY 2013-14 pending disposal of the appealpreferred by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. WP.No.7787 of 2019:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or anyother appropriate writ application or order Article 226 of theConstitution of India Calling for the records on the file of the1st respondent in PAN. in passing the impugned orderin F.No.CC-1(3)/ /2018-19 dated 19.02.2019 along withimpugned notices in AAFPB3609P /2018-19 dated 07.02.2019 issuedto the 3rd and 4th respondents and quash the same as illegal,arbitrary and devoid of merit and consequentially direct the 1strespondent to grant stay of all further recovery proceedingspertaining to the AY 2013-14 pending disposal of the appealpreferred by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. WP.No.7789 of 2019:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or anyother appropriate writ application or order Article 226 of theConstitution of India Calling for the records on the file of the1st respondent in PAN. in passing the impugned orderin F.No.CC-1(3)/ /2018-19 dated 19.02.2019 along withimpugned notices in AAFPA3456M /2018-19 dated 07.02.2019 issuedto the 3rd and 4th respondents and quash the same as illegal,arbitrary and devoid of merit and consequentially direct the 1strespondent to grant stay of all further recovery proceedingspertaining to the AY 2011-12 pending disposal of the appealpreferred by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. WP.No.7790 of 2019:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or anyother appropriate writ application or order Article 226 of theConstitution of India Calling for the records on the file of the1st respondent in PAN. in passing the impugned orderin F.No.CC-1(3)/ /2018-19 dated 19.02.2019 along withimpugned notices in AAFPA3456M /2018-19 dated 07.02.2019 issuedto the 3rd and 4th respondents and quash the same as illegal,arbitrary and devoid of merit and consequentially direct the 1strespondent to grant stay of all further recovery proceedingspertaining to the AY 2011-12 pending disposal of the appealpreferred by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. WP.No.7790 of 2019:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or anyother appropriate writ application or order Article 226 of theConstitution of India Calling for the records on the file of the 1st respondent in PAN. in passing the impugned orderin F.No.CC-1(3)/ /2018-19 dated 19.02.2019 along withimpugned notices in AAFPB3498Q /2018-19 dated 07.02.2019 issuedto the 3rd respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitraryand devoid of merit and consequentially direct the 1strespondent to grant stay of all further recovery proceedingspertaining to the AY 2013-14 pending disposal of the appealpreferred by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. COMMON ORDER This common order is passed in relation to all the aboveWrit Petitions insofar as the relevant facts and circumstancesare identical. Final orders are passed after hearingMr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel for the petitioner andMr.A.P.Srinivas, learned senior standing counsel, who have takennotice on behalf of respondents 1 & 2, by consent expressed byboth of them, for final disposal of the matters at the stage ofadmission. 2.The writ petitioners have challenged orders passed by theAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), the1[st] respondent herein, dated 19.02.2019. Orders of assessmentsunder the Provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have beenpassed in the case of the petitioners, consequent upon searchand seizure action conducted on 17.02.2016. The assessmentsare stated to be pending in appeal. While this is so, thepetitioners have filed applications for stay of the demand oftax on 18.02.2019 before the 1[st] respondent. The applicationsset out, in some detail, the prima facie case in appeal. 3.The impugned orders have been passed rejecting the saidapplications and are identical in all cases. The order passed inrespect of the petition in W.P.No.7764 of 2019 is extractedbelow: Please refer to your petition cited in thereference, wherein you have requested for stay on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ collection of taxes for the A.Y. 2011-12. In thisconnection, it is to inform that the request cannot beacceded to, as you have not paid any taxes.Therefore, the petition is hereby rejected. However,your request for stay can be considered subject topayment of 20% of the demand raised. Your compliancein this regard may reach the undersigned before25.02.2019. In case, there is no response within thesaid date & time, steps will be taken to recover theentire demand.” 4.The manner of disposal of applications seeking stay hasbeen considered by me in my order dated 13.02.2019, passed inWP.No.3849 of 2019. The relevant portion of the order below: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ collection of taxes for the A.Y. 2011-12. In thisconnection, it is to inform that the request cannot beacceded to, as you have not paid any taxes.Therefore, the petition is hereby rejected. However,your request for stay can be considered subject topayment of 20% of the demand raised. Your compliancein this regard may reach the undersigned before25.02.2019. In case, there is no response within thesaid date & time, steps will be taken to recover theentire demand.” 4.The manner of disposal of applications seeking stay hasbeen considered by me in my order dated 13.02.2019, passed inWP.No.3849 of 2019. The relevant portion of the order below: '7. The parameters to be taken into account inconsidering the grant of stay of disputed demand are wellsettled – the existence of a prima facie case, financialstringency and the balance of convenience. ‘Financialstringency’ would include within its ambit the question of'irreparable injury' and ‘undue hardship’ as well. It isonly upon an application of the three factors as aforesaidthat the assessing officer can exercise discretion for thegrant or rejection, wholly or in part, of a request for stayof disputed demand. 8. In addition, periodic Instructions/Circulars inregard to the manner of adjudication of stay petitions areissued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) for theguidance of the Departmental authorities. The one oft-quotedby the assessee is Office Memorandum F.No.1/6/69/-ITCC, dated21.08.1969 that states as follows: '1. One of the points that came up for considerationin the 8th Meeting of the Informal ConsultativeCommittee was that income-tax assessments were oftenarbitrarily pitched at higher figures and that thecollection of disputed demand as a result thereof wasalso not stayed in spite of the specific provision inthe matter in s. 220(6) of the IT Act, 1961. 2. The then Deputy Prime Minister had observed asunder : ".........Where the income determined on assessmentwas substantially higher than the returned income, saytwice the latter amount or more, the collection of thetax in dispute should be held in abeyance till thedecision on the appeal provided there were no lapses on the part of the assessees." 3. The Board desire that the above observations may bebrought to the notice of all the Income-tax Officersworking under you and the powers of stay of recoveryin such cases up to the stage of first appeal may beexercised by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner/Commissioner of Income-tax.' 9. Thereafter, Instruction No.1914 was issued by theCBDT on 21.03.1996 and states as follows: 1. Recovery of outstanding tax demands [Instruction No. 1914 F. No. 404/72/93 ITCC dated 2-12-1993 from CBDT] The Board has felt the need for a comprehensiveinstruction on the subject of recovery of taxdemand in order to streamline recoveryprocedures. This instruction is accordingly beingissued in supersession of all earlierinstructions on the subject and reiterates theexisting Circulars on the subject. 2. The Board is of the view that, as a matter ofprinciple, every demand should be recovered assoon as it becomes due. Demand may be kept inabeyance for valid reasons only in accordancewith the guidelines given below : A. Responsibility: i. It shall be the responsibility of theAssessing Officer and the TRO to collect everydemand that has been raised, except thefollowing: (a) Demand which has not fallen due;(b) Demand which has been stayed by a Court orITAT or Settlement Commission;(c) Demand forwhich a proper proposal for write-off has beensubmitted;(d) Demand stayed in accordance withparas B & C below. ii. Where demand in respect of which a recoverycertificate has been issued or a statement hasbeen drawn, the primary responsibility for thecollection of tax shall rest with the TRO. A. Responsibility: i. It shall be the responsibility of theAssessing Officer and the TRO to collect everydemand that has been raised, except thefollowing: (a) Demand which has not fallen due;(b) Demand which has been stayed by a Court orITAT or Settlement Commission;(c) Demand forwhich a proper proposal for write-off has beensubmitted;(d) Demand stayed in accordance withparas B & C below. ii. Where demand in respect of which a recoverycertificate has been issued or a statement hasbeen drawn, the primary responsibility for thecollection of tax shall rest with the TRO. iii. It would be the responsibility of thesupervisory authorities to ensure that theAssessing Officers and the TROs take all suchmeasures as are necessary to collect the demand. It must be understood that mere issue of a showcause notice with no follow-up is not to beregarded as adequate effort to recover taxes. B. Stay Petitions: i. Stay petitions filed with the AssessingOfficers must be disposed of within two weeks ofthe filing of petition by the tax- payer. Theassessee must be intimated of the decisionwithout delay. ii. Where stay petitions are made to theauthorities higher than the Assessing Officer(DC/CIT/CC), it is the responsibility of thehigher authorities to dispose of the petitionswithout any delay, and in any event within twoweeks of the receipt of the petition. Such adecision should be communicated to the assesseeand the Assessing Officer immediately. iii. The decision in the matter of stay of demandshould normally be taken by Assessing Officer/TROand his immediate superior. A higher superiorauthority should interfere with the decision ofthe AO/TRO only in exceptional circumstances;e.g., where the assessment order appears to beunreasonably high-pitched or where genuinehardship is likely to be caused to the assessee.The higher authorities should discourage theassessee from filing review petitions before themas a matter of routine or in a frivolous mannerto gain time for withholding payment of taxes. C. Guidelines for staying demand: i. A demand will be stayed only if there arevalid reasons for doing so. Mere filing an appealagainst the assessment order will not be asufficient reason to stay the recovery of demand.A few illustrative situations where stay could begranted are: It is clarified that in these situations also,stay may be granted only in respect of the amountattributable to such disputed points. Furtherwhere it is subsequently found that the assesseehas not co-operated in the early disposal ofappeal or where a subsequent pronouncement by ahigher appellate authority or court alters theabove situation, the stay order may be reviewedand modified. The above illustrations are, ofcourse, not exhaustive. ii. In granting stay, the Assessing Officer mayimpose such conditions as he may think fit. Thushe may — a. require the assessee to offersuitable security to safeguard the interest ofrevenue; b. require the assessee to pay towardsthe disputed taxes a reasonable amount in lumpsum or in instalments; c. require an undertakingfrom the assessee that he will co-operate in theearly disposal of appeal failing which the stayorder will be cancelled. d. reserve the right toreview the order passed after expiry of areasonable period, say up to 6 months, or if theassessee has not co-operated in the earlydisposal of appeal, or where a subsequentpronouncement by a higher appellate authority orcourt alters the above situations; e. reserve aright to adjust refunds arising, if any, againstthe demand. iii. Payment by instalments may be liberallyallowed so as to collect the entire demand withina reasonable period not exceeding 18 months. iii. Payment by instalments may be liberallyallowed so as to collect the entire demand withina reasonable period not exceeding 18 months. iv. Since the phrase “stay of demand” does notoccur in section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act,the Assessing Officer should always use in anyorder passed under section 220(6) [or undersection 220(3) or section 220(7)], the expressionthat occurs in the section viz., that he agreesto treat the assessee as not being default inrespect of the amount specified, subject to suchconditions as he deems fit to impose. v. While considering an application under section220(6), the Assessing Officer should consider allrelevant factors having a bearing on the demandraised and communicate his decision in the formof a speaking order. D. Miscellaneous: i. Even where recovery of demand has been stayed,the Assessing Officer will continue to review thesituation to ensure that the conditions imposedare fulfilled by the assessee failing which thestay order would need to be withdrawn. ii. Where the assessee seeks stay of demand fromthe Tribunal, it should be strongly opposed. Ifthe assessee presses his application, the CITshould direct the departmental representative torequest that the appeal be posted within a month so that Tribunal’s order on the appeal can beknown within two months. iii. Appeal effects will have to be given within2 weeks from the receipt of the appellate order.Similarly, rectification application should bedecided within 2 weeks of the receipt t hereof.Instances where there is undue delay in givingeffect to appellate orders, or in decidingrectification applications, should be dealt withvery strictly by the CCITs/CITs. 3. The Board desires that appropriate action istaken in the matter of recovery in accordancewith the above procedure. The Assessing Officeror the TRO, as the case may be, and his immediatesuperior officer shall be held responsible forensuring compliance with these instructions. 4. This procedure would apply mutatis mutandis todemands created under other Direct Taxesenactments also.' 10. Instruction 1914 was partially modified by OfficeMemorandum dated 29.02.2016 taking into account the fact thatAssessing Officers insisted on payment of significantportions of the disputed demand prior to grant of stayresulting in extreme hardship for tax payers. Thus, in orderto streamline the grant of stay and standardize theprocedure, modified guidelines were issued which are asfollows: '....... (A) In a case where the outstanding demandis disputed before CIT (A), the assessingofficer shall grant stay of demand tilldisposal of first appeal on payment of 15%of the disputed demand, unless the casefalls in the category discussed in pars (B)hereunder. (B) In a situation where, (a) the assessing officer is of the viewthat the nature of addition resulting in thedisputed demand is such that payment of alump sum amount higher than 15% is warranted(e.g. in a case where addition on the sameissue has been confirmed by appellateauthorities in earlier years or the decision of the Supreme Court /or jurisdictional HighCourt is in favour of Revenue or addition isbased on credible evidence collected in asearch or survey operation, etc.) or, (b) the assessing officer is of the viewthat the nature of addition resulting in thedisputed demand is such that payment of alump sum amount lower than 15% is warranted(e.g. in a case where addition on the sameissue has been deleted by appellateauthorities in earlier years or the decisionof the Supreme Court or jurisdictional HighCourt is in favour of the assessee, etc.),the assessing officer shall refer the matterto the administrative Pr. CIT/ CIT, whoafter considering all relevant facts shalldecide the quantum/ proportion of demand tobe paid by the assessee as lump sum paymentfor granting a stay of the balance demand.' (b) the assessing officer is of the viewthat the nature of addition resulting in thedisputed demand is such that payment of alump sum amount lower than 15% is warranted(e.g. in a case where addition on the sameissue has been deleted by appellateauthorities in earlier years or the decisionof the Supreme Court or jurisdictional HighCourt is in favour of the assessee, etc.),the assessing officer shall refer the matterto the administrative Pr. CIT/ CIT, whoafter considering all relevant facts shalldecide the quantum/ proportion of demand tobe paid by the assessee as lump sum paymentfor granting a stay of the balance demand.' 11. Instruction 1914 was further modified by OfficeMemorandum bearing number F.No.404/72/93 – ITCC dated 31.072017 as follows: 'OFFICE MEMORANDUM F. No. 404/72/93-ITCC dated31.07.2017 Subject: Partial modification of Instruction No. 1914dated 21.3.1996 to provide for guidelines for stay ofdemand at the first appeal stage. Reference: Board’s O.M. of even number dated 29.2.2016 InstructionNo.1914dated21.3.1996containsguidelines issued by the Board regarding procedure tobe followed for recovery of outstanding demand,including procedure for grant of stay of demand. Vide O.M. N0.404/72/93-ITCC dated 29.2.2016 revisedguidelines were issued in partial modification ofinstruction No 1914, wherein, inter alia, vide para 4(A) it had been laid down that in a case where theoutstanding demand is disputed before CIT(A), theAssessing Officer shall grant stay of demand tilldisposal of first appeal on payment of 15% of thedisputed demand unless the case falls in the categorydiscussed in para (B) thereunder. Similar references to the standard rate of 15% have also been made insucceeding paragraphs therein. 2. The matter has been reviewed by the Board in thelight of feedback received from field authorities. Inview of the Board’s efforts to contain over pitchedassessments through several measures resulting infairer and more reasonable assessment orders, thestandard rate of 15% of the disputed demand is foundto be on the lower side. Accordingly. it has beendecided that the standard rate prescribed in O.M.dated 29.2.2016 be revised to 20% of the disputeddemand, where the demand is contested before CIT(A).Thus all references to 15% of the disputed demand inthe aforesaid O.M dated 29.2.2016 hereby standmodified to 20% of the disputed demand. Otherguidelines contained in the O.M. dated 29.2.2016 shallremain unchanged. These modifications may be immediately brought to thenotice of all officers working in your jurisdictionfor proper compliance.' 12. The Circulars and Instructions as extracted aboveare in the nature of guidelines issued to assist theassessing authorities in the matter of grant of stay andcannot substitute or override the basic tenets to befollowed in the consideration and disposal of staypetitions. The existence of a prima facie case for whichsome illustrations have been provided in the Circularsthemselves, the financial stringency faced by an assesseeand the balance of convenience in the matter constitute the‘trinity’, so to say, and are indispensable in considerationof a stay petition by the authority. The Board has, whilestating generally that the assessee shall be called upon toremit 20% of the disputed demand, granted ample discretionto the authority to either increase or decrease the quantumdemanded based on the three vital factors to be taken intoconsideration.' 5.Even in the present case, the assessing authority hasapparently not applied his mind to the cardinal factors that arerelevant to the adjudication of stay petitions. Theapplications filed by the petitioners have been rejected on thesole ground that no portion of the disputed taxes have beenremitted. The petitioners have been called upon to pay 20% ofthe demand under threat of recovery of the entire amount ifthere was no compliance of the direction to remit 20%. 6.The ingredients of existence of prima facie case,financial stringency and balance of convenience have not evenbeen referred to. The impugned orders are thus set aside. Thepetitioners are directed to appear before the Assessingauthority on 25.03.2019 at 10.30 am. Speaking orders be passedby the 1st respondent/assessing authority on the applicationsfor stay after hearing the petitioners and considering allmaterials placed by them in support of their request for stay,within a period of two weeks thereafter (i.e.,) on or before08.04.2019. 7.The bank accounts of the petitioners are stated to beunder attachment. Let the attachment continue, subject to theorder to be passed in the stay applications. Let no furthercoercive steps be initiated till 08.04.2019 or till passing oforder on stay applications, whichever is earlier. 8.These Writ Petitions are disposed of in the above terms.No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions areclosed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sai To 1.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle – (1) 3Investigation Wing, Room No.312,New No.46, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.2.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 18121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.3.M/s.HDFC Bank,Represented by its Branch Manager,No.68, Ground Floor,Mint Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai 600 079. 4.M/s.Indian Overseas Bank,Sowcarpet Branch,Represented by its Branch Manager,Davey Complex, First Floor,143, NSC Bose Road,Chennai 600 079. +1cc to Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Advocate, S.R.No.25810+6ccs to Mr.R.Sivaraman, Advocate, S.R.No.27085 W.P.Nos.7764, 7773, 7778,7787, 7789 & 7790 of 2019 JP(CO)CS/05/08/2019