Dr. Harinder Mittra v. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar And Another

CWP No. 21025 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 21025 of 2015 Date of Decision: 17.11.2015 Dr. Harinder Mittra Versus ....Petitioner. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar and another ...Respondents. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN. PRESENT: Mr. Rohit Sud, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for the revenue. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1.In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of theConstitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ inthe nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 8.9.2015 (AnnexureP-6) passed by respondent No.1 dismissing the stay application againstthe recovery of demand of ` 39,54,840/- for the assessment year 2012- 13. 2.A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversyinvolved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The e-filing returnwas filed by the petitioner on 14.9.2012 declaring income at` 20,23,210/-. The said return was processed under Section 143(1) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) on 4.1.2013 at the sameincome. The case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny and notice CWP No. 21025 of 2015-2- under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued. The Assessing Officerframed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act at` 1,14,19,010/- vide order dated 25.3.2015. Feeling aggrieved, thepetitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.1. The petitioner filedtwo applications dated 23.4.2015 (Annexure P-2 Colly) for stay, onebefore the Assessing Officer and the other before respondent No.1. TheAssessing Officer vide order dated 15.6.2015 (Annexure P-3) directedthe petitioner to deposit 50% of the disputed demand. The appeal wasfixed for hearing on 27.8.2015 and notice dated 18.8.2015 (Annexure P-1) was issued to the petitioner in this regard. However, the main appealwas argued before respondent No.1 on 27.8.2015 and the petitioner alsofiled written submissions, Annexure P-4, on the said date. Thereafter,the case was adjourned to 7.9.2015 for further arguments. On 7.9.2015,the appeal was again heard on merits and the petitioner also madefurther written submissions dated 7.9.2015 (Annexure P-5). RespondentNo.1 vide order dated 8.9.2015 (Annexure P-6) dismissed the stayapplication of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that out of thedemand of ` 39,54,840/-, a sum of ` 20,00,000/- has already beendeposited by way of bank draft in terms of order dated 1.10.2015 passedby this Court. The cheque of the said amount has been issued by theDeputy Registrar (Accounts) of this Court in favour of respondent No.2.It was further submitted that the arguments were heard by respondentNo.1 on 27.8.2015 and again on 7.9.2015 and even the writtensubmissions, Annexures P-4 and P-5, respectively, were filed. It wasprayed that in such circumstances, the recovery of the balance amountbe stayed and respondent No.1 be directed to decide the appeal within a time bound frame. 4.Learned counsel for the revenue opposed the prayer madeby the learned counsel for the appellant and prayed for dismissal of thewrit petition. time bound frame. 4.Learned counsel for the revenue opposed the prayer madeby the learned counsel for the appellant and prayed for dismissal of thewrit petition. 5.On 14.10.2015, learned counsel for the petitioner hadproduced a demand draft for ` 20,00,000/- on account of part paymentof tax liability to show his bonafide, thereupon, respondent No.2 wasrestrained from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the remainingamount. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping inview the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case coupled withthe fact that the petitioner has already deposited a sum of ` 20,00,000/-as per order dated 14.10.2015, the present writ petition is disposed of bymaking the interim order dated 14.10.2015 absolute. Further respondentNo.1 is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner expeditiouslypreferably within three months. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE November 17, 2015(RAMENDRA JAIN) gbs JUDGE