Cwjc/6201/2011 Of M/S Kumar And Kumar Associates v. The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax-Ii, Central Revenue

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.6201 of 2011 ==================================================== M/S Kumar And Kumar Associates, A partnership firm constituted under India Partnership Act, office at Room No.2, First Floor, Satya Narayan Market, Boring Road, Patna through its working partner, Subodh Kumar Son of Rup Narayan Rai R/o- Montesawari School Lane, Gandhi Nagar, Boring Road Patna-800001 - Petitioner Versus 1.The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax-II, Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Revenue Building, Birchad Patel Path, Patna. 3.The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Near Dakbanglow, Frazer Road, Patna 4.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Lok Nayak Bhawan Near Dak Banglow, Patna - Respondents ==================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner: Mr. Krishna Mohan Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad, Advocate ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3 13.04.2011 With the consent of the learned advocates the petition is heard and decided today. The petitioner-assessee has challenged the order dated 2[nd]March 2011 made by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle-4, Patna refusing to grant stay under Section 220 (6) of the Income Tax Bibhash Act, 1961 pending the appeal against the assessment order. Learned Advocate Mr. Krishna Mohan Mishra has appeared for the petitioner. He has submitted that pursuant to the discussion on 8[th] April 2011 the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- against the demand raised by the Assessing Officer. Mr. Mishra has relied upon the Circular dated 21[st] August 1969 to support his claim that in case of harsh assessment the Assessing Officer ought to have exercised power under Section 220(6) of the Act in favour of the assessee. In the present case the income assessed is more than double the income returned by the petitioner. In the fitness of things the Assessing Officer ought to have granted stay pending the appeal. On the above referred undisputed facts and in the circumstances of the case, we allow this petition. Pending the appeal against the order of assessment, there shall be stay against coercive recovery pursuant to the assessment order dated 28[th] December 2010 on condition that the petitioner will, on or before 31[st] July 2011, pay a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- either in one lump-sum or in installments, against the outstanding demand of Rs. 51,55,291/- for the assessment year 2008-09. The Petition stands allowed in the above terms. ( R.M.Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)