Balumal Wadhumal Dhingreja v. Commissioner Of Income Tax 19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1012 OF 2012 Balumal Wadhumal Dhingreja ..... Petitioner Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 19 ..... Respondent Mr.Mandar M.Vaidya for the Petitioner. Mr.D.K.Kamwal for the Respondent. CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD &R.D. DHANUKA, JJ. DATE : MAY 10, 2012 P.C.: 1.The Petitioner has challenged an order passed by the Assessing Officer on 16 April 2012 declining to grant a stay of demand for Assessment Year 2009-10. 2.An assessment has been made under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 27 December 2011 following which a demand for tax together with interest is raised in the amount of Rs. 21.25 lacs. The Petitioner had applied for stay of the demand and it is his case that he was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 6 lacs. On 7 March 2012, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Joint CIT 19 stating that he had already deposited an amount of Rs. 5 lacs as per the order dated 27 December 2011 and was enclosing a further cheque in the amount of Rs. 1 lac. Following this letter, the Assessing Officer by his communication dated 7 March, 2012 addressed to the bankers of the petitioner, Citi Bank withdrew a notice issued under Section 226(3) on 27 February 2012. Thereafter on 21 March 2012 the petitioner was informed that the CIT had found no reason to stay the recovery of the demand since no specific material in support of the financial hardship caused to the petitioner has been produced and there was no denial that the income in respect of which tax had been ascertained had indeed been earned in the past. The petitioner submitted a representation on 28 March 2012 pointing out that he is a senior citizen 79 years of age and that an order had been passed on 27 December 2011 in pursuance of which he had already deposited an amount of Rs. 6 lacs. A further representation was submitted on 30 March 2012 to CIT 19. On 3 April 2012 the petitioner has been called upon to deposit an amount of Rs. 16.25 lacs. On 16 April 2012 the petitioner has been informed that his application for stay has been rejected. 3.Apart from the fact that the order rejecting the application for stay contains absolutely no reasons whatsoever, we have taken note of the fact that the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 6 lacs as against the outstanding demand of Rs.21.25 lacs. The Petitioner is in appeal before the CIT (Appeals) against the order of assessment. In our view, the ends of justice would be met if an appropriate direction for deposit is passed conditional on which a stay of wp1012_12 recovery of demand can be granted. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has already deposited an amount of Rs. 6 lacs, we direct that within a period of two weeks from today, the petitioner shall deposit a further amount of Rs. 4. 5 lacs as a condition for stay of recovery of demand. Upon the petitioner making the aforesaid deposit, there shall be a stay of recovery of the balance demand. In the event the petitioner fails to effect the deposit as directed, the protection granted by this order shall come to an end without further reference to the court. 4.The Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 5.There shall be no order as to costs. DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. R.D. DHANUKA, J.