Director Sri Megharaj v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.3.2011 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.7137 of 2011 1 M/S.INDUS CITYSCAPES PETITIONER CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI MEGHARAJ Vs 1 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE II(3) 5TH FLOOR NEW BLOCK 121 MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD NUNGAMBAKKAM CHENNAI-34.2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) 121 MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD NUNGAMBAKKAM CHENNAI-34.RESPONDENTS Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for a writ of Mandamus forbearing the 1st respondentfrom initiating or continuing any proceedings for recovery of thedisputed demand pursuant to the order of Assessment in PAN/GIRNo.AABC12157A dated 23.12.2010 in respect of Assessment Year 2008-09. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner is that the petitioner is not liable to pay the tax, asassessed by the first respondent, under Section 143(3) and theinterest thereon, under Sections 234B and 234C of the Income TaxAct, 1961, as the petitioner is a developer constructingresidential houses and not a contractor, as claimed by theassessing authority. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had alsosubmitted that the petitioner has filed an appeal before thesecond respondent, on 19.1.2011, challenging the assessment orderpassed by the first respondent. The petitioner had also filed astay petition, to stay the recovery of the disputed demand and todirect the assessing officer not to treat the petitioner as anassessee in default, in respect of the demand of tax and interest,said to be payable by the petitioner, pending disposal of theappeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents hadsubmitted, inter alia, that the second respondent may be directedto dispose of the stay petition, filed by the petitioner within aspecified period, on the petitioner paying 50% of the total demandmade by the assessing authority. 4. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed insupport of the writ petition and in view of the submissions madeby the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, thisCourt finds it appropriate to direct the second respondent todispose of the appeal, dated 19.1.2011, without directing thepetitioner to pay 50% of the demand made by the assessingauthority, as submitted by the learned counsel appearing for thefirst respondent, within a period of eight weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall co-operate,fully, during the hearings before the appellate authority. It isalso made clear that no recovery proceedings shall be initiatedagainst the petitioner, in respect of the disputed amount of taxand interest, liable to be paid by the petitioner till thedisposal of the appeal, by the second respondent. lan To: 1 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE II(3) 5TH FLOOR NEW BLOCK 121 MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD NUNGAMBAKKAM CHENNAI-34. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) 121 MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD NUNGAMBAKKAM CHENNAI-34. 1 cc to Dr. Anita Sumath, Advocate, Sr. 20158 1 cc to Mr.J. Narayanasamy, Advocate, sr. 20324 1 cc to government Pleader, Sr. 19807 Writ Petition No.7137 of 2011 JSV (CO)kk 24/3