Gurbinder Singh v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Circle V (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN M/s.Rattha Holding Co. (P) Ltd.,A Private Limited Company Incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956,represented by its DirecorMr.Harinder SinghNo.37, T.T.K.Road,Chennai-600 018 .. Petitioner in WP.No.2784/2011 Harbinder Singh .. Petitioner in WP.No.2785/2011 Harinder Singh .. Petitioner in WP.No.2786/2011 Gurbinder Singh .. Petitioner in WP.No.2787/2011 Versus 1. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle V (3), 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-V) 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034 .. Respondents in all the above WPs Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamuscalling for the records of the first respondent in in OrderC.No.Scrutiny/ Com.Cir.V(3)/2010-11 relating to the application made https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by the petitioner for stay of demand under Section 220 (6) of theIncome Tax Act,1961 and quash the order dated 27.01.2011 rejectingthe stay petition and direct the first respondent to grant stay ofdemand relating to the assessment orders for the assessment year2007-08 and 2008-09, 2005-2006 to 2008-09, 2005-06 to 2008-09, and2005-06 to 2008 -09 respectively pending disposal of the appealbefore the second respondent. For Respondents : Mr.Narayanasamy (in all WPs) Standing counsel for Respondents. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalfof the petitioners is that all the relevant issues had not beenconsidered as per the circulars issued by the respondents and bytaking into consideration the decisions of the various Courts oflaw , while disposing of the petitions filed by the petitioners, forstay of the collection of the disputed tax. In the impugned order,the main reason stated for the rejection of the stay petitions is asfollows: "In view of the above position you have no validground to claim stay of demand till the disposal of appealas it can be seen that there are very little chances ofsuccess in appeal." As such, it is clear that the second respondent had travelled beyondthe scope of the stay petitions while disposing of the same. 2. Even though the learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespondent has submitted that the petitioners may be directed todeposit a part of the tax liability assessed against them, this Courtis of the considered view that the impugned orders are liable to beset aside as it is unsustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly,they are set aside. It is also found to be appropriate to direct thesecond respondent to dispose the appeals pending on his file, withina period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder. The petitioners shall co-operate fully, in the disposal of theappeals. However, it is made clear that the respondents shall nottake any coercive action against the petitioners, in respect of taxamounts to be collected from them, based on the impugned demands. 3. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of, with theabove directions. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions areclosed. No order as to costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarkalTo1. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle V (3), 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-V) 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034 + 4 CC to M/s R.Sivaraman, Advocate SR.No.8704+ 1 Cc to M/s J.Narayanaswamy Advocate SR.No.9351KSK(CO)VC(4.3.2011) W.P.Nos.2784 to 2787 of 2011 & M.P.Nos.1,1,1 & 1 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/