Dr.pratima Venkatachalam v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYW.P.No.8520 of 2016andWMP No.7581 of 2016 Dr.Pratima Venkatachalam.. Petitioner v. 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), No.121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034 2. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation-2(1), 7[th] floor, Annex Building, No.121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034.. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call forthe records and quash the order bearing No.ITA.No./CIT (A)-16/2015-16 dated 30.09.2015 on the file of the 1[st] respondent TheCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-34 andconsequently forbear the second respondent from initiating anyproceedings for the recovery of Income Tax till the disposal ofthe Appeal pending on the file of the first respondent TheCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-34. For Petitioner : M/s Gupta and Ravi Challenging the order dated 30.09.2015 on the file of thefirst respondent, the petitioner has filed the above writpetition for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus andconsequently forbearing the second respondent from initiatingany proceedings for the recovery of Income Tax till the disposalof the Appeal pending on the file of the first respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. According to the petitioner, she preferred an appealbefore the first respondent on 15.04.2015 and also filed anapplication for the grant of stay before the second respondent .By order dated 04.06.2015, the first respondent refused to staythe collection of the demand and the petitioner was directed todeposit the amount. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petitionbefore the first respondent on 12.06.2015, seeking for an orderof interim stay to ensure that no recovery proceedings areinitiated by the second respondent as per its impugned orderdated 4.6.2015. However, notwithstanding the pendency of thestay application, the second respondent issued a notice dated14.08.2015, calling upon the petitioner to pay the demand ofRs.98,73,120/-immediately and produce the copy of the challanfor the payment of tax. Aggrieved over the issuance of noticedated 14.08.2015, the petitioner has filed a Writ Petition in WPNo.28629 of 2015 before this Court. By Order dated 11.9.2015,this Court set aside the notice dated 14.08.2015, issued by thesecond respondent and directed the first respondent to passorders in the stay petition, filed by the petitioner, within aperiod of four weeks. The first respondent, by order dated30.09.2015, granted an order of stay on condition that thepetitioner paying 40% of the demand and stayed the balancedemand till the disposal of the appeal, filed by the petitioner.Aggrieved over the order dated 30.09.2015, the petitioner hasfiled the above writ petition. 3. When the matter came up for hearing on 08.03.2016,this Court granted an order of interim stay on condition thatthe petitioner paying 25% of the demand within ten days. 4. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, thelearned counsel on either side, submitted that the petitionerhad complied with the conditional order passed by this court on08.03.2016. Admittedly, the appeal, filed by the petitioner, ispending before the first respondent. 5.Mr.Arun Kurrian Joseph, learned Standing Counsel,appearing for the respondents, submitted that the petitioner hadcomplied with the order by paying 25% of the demand. 3. When the matter came up for hearing on 08.03.2016,this Court granted an order of interim stay on condition thatthe petitioner paying 25% of the demand within ten days. 4. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, thelearned counsel on either side, submitted that the petitionerhad complied with the conditional order passed by this court on08.03.2016. Admittedly, the appeal, filed by the petitioner, ispending before the first respondent. 5.Mr.Arun Kurrian Joseph, learned Standing Counsel,appearing for the respondents, submitted that the petitioner hadcomplied with the order by paying 25% of the demand. 6.Since the petitioner had paid 25% of the demand, whichwas also admitted by the standing counsel appearing for therespondents, the impugned order dated 30.09.2015 is modified asfollows:“There shall be an order of interim staytill the disposal of the appeal,preferred by the petitioner on payment of25% of the demand, which was already paidby the petitioner. The first respondentis directed to decide the appeal and passorders in the appeal, on merits and in accordance with law within three monthsfrom the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order and till such time, thereshall be an order of interim stay. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Nocosts. Consequently, connected MP is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(J) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarsrTo1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), No.121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 0342. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation-2(1), 7[th] floor, Annex Building, No.121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034+1cc to Mr.T. Ravikumar, Advocate, S.R.No.21358+1cc to M/s. Gupta & Ravi, Advocate, S.R.No.21426 NM(CO)EU(/04/2016)