Cg Lucy Switchgear Ltd., Mumbai v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax & Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONWRIT PETITION NO.2849 OF 2009 CG Lucy Switchgear Ltd., Mumbai. ... Petitioner Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax & Ors. ... Respondents ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2850 OF 2009 CG Lucy Switchgear Ltd., Mumbai. ... Petitioner Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. S. E. Dastur, senior counsel with Mr. Nishant Thakkar andRajesh Poojary i/b Mulla & Mulla for the petitioner. Mr. Vimal Gupta for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 12TH MARCH, 2009. P.C.:- 1.In both these writ petitions, the question involved is whether the expenditure incurred by the petitioner-assessee for the business can be disallowed on the ground that the tax was notdeducted at source or that the tax deducted at source has beendeposited in the subsequent assessment year. 2.Writ Petition No.2849 of 2009 pertains to the AssessmentYear 2005-06. The appeal filed by the petitioner-assessee againstthe assessment order is pending before the Commissioner ofIncome-tax (Appeals). During the pendency of the appeal, theCommissioner of Income-tax directed the petitioner-assessee todeposit Rs.10 lakhs per month, till July, 2008. By order dated17/9/2008, the petitioner was informed that his case is reviewedand he is now directed to pay the instalment of Rs.50 lakhs permonth, from October, 2008. Thereafter, by the impugned order,the earlier order was vacated and for balance amount, attachmentof the petitioner's bank account was directed. The petitioner isaggrieved by this order and has approached this court. 3.We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Since,admittedly, 83% of the total tax liability has already been paid by the petitioner-assessee and the hearing of the appeal hascommenced on 19/2/2008, we are of the opinion that it would bejust and proper to stay the balance demand and lifting theattachment levied on the bank account of the petitioner. 4.So far as Writ Petition No.2850 of 2009 is concerned, itappears that the assessment order therein for Assessment Year2006-07 was passed on the basis of the assessment order inrespect of Assessment Year 2005-06. Since the appeal preferredagainst the Assessment Year 2005-06 as well as appeal againstassessment order passed in Assessment Year 2006-07 arepending, we are of the opinion that it would be just and proper thatthe petitioner-assessee should deposit an amount of Rs.15 lakhsby 25/3/2009. On such amount being deposited, there shall be stayof demand till the disposal of appeal and for a period of 8 weeksthereafter. 5.The petitions are disposed of. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [J.P. DEVADHAR, J.]