Narayanamoorthy Gnana Mugundan,Rep. By Accountant A.mohanraj v. The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corp Wd22(1) Tbm, Non-Corp Wd22(1) Tbm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.06.2020 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN W.P.No.8209 of 2020 andWMP Nos.9785, 9787 and 9792 of 2020 Narayanamoorthy Gnana Mugundan,Rep. By Accountant A.Mohanraj .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corp WD22(1) TBM, Non-Corp WD22(1) TBM, 1[st] and 2[nd] Floor, Ramakrishna Salai, West Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax,(Appeals)-10, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 034. Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 034. 3. The Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, No.2, Tannery Road, Somasundaram Nagar, Pallavaram, Chennai- 600 043. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for Writ of CertiorarifiedMandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent in PANNo.BMNPG2851F – DIN & Letter No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2019-20/1026414321(1) for the assessment year 2017 – 18, quash the proceedingsdated 11.03.2020 issued therein and further grant an absolutestay of his Assessment Order in Order No. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2019-20/1021932553(1) dated 09.12.2019 for the Assessment Year2017-18 pending disposal of the appeal on the file of the SecondRespondent herein. For Petitioner : Mr.R.L.Ramani, Senior Counsel for Mr. B. Raveendran For Respondents: Mr.Prabhu Mukundh Arunkumar for RR 1 & 2 ORDER This matter is taken up for hearing through Video-Conferencing. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed underSection 220 (6) of the Income Tax Act requiring him to pay 20%of the tax due, to treat him as an assessee not in default, madeby the Assessing Officer in view of the fact that the Appealfiled by the petitioner under Section 246 is pending before theCommissioner Appeals viz., the second respondent. 3. Mr.R.L.Ramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for thepetitioner would contend that the Assessing Officer had merelyreferred to the circular of the CBDT for directing thepetitioner to pay 20% of the tax due, without going into theother aspects. He would also rely upon the judgment of thisCourt in WP No.3849 of 2019, wherein, Hon'ble Dr. Justice AnitaSumanth, had after considering the scope of Section 220 (6),held that Assessing Officers need not mechanically follow thecirculars of the CBDT, since they are only in the nature of aguideline. This Court has also pointed out that the AssessingOfficer has to consider other facts also while determining thepercentage of the amount of disputed Tax that is to be depositedby the assessee to claim the benefits of Subsection 6 of Section220. 4. Mr.Prabhu Mukundh Arunkumar, learned Counsel appearingfor the respondents 1 and 2 would contend that the Officer isjustified in following the directions of the CBDT. This veryquestion has been considered by this Court in WP No.3849 of 2019. 5. In view of the said judgment, I am of the consideredopinion that the present impugned order has to go, hence theimpugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to theAssessing Officer to enable him to pass orders afresh in thelight of the directions issued by this Court in WP No.3849 of2019. 6. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the aboveobservation. No costs. Consequently, the connectedmiscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar jv To 1. The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corp WD22(1) TBM, 1[st] and 2[nd] Floor, Ramakrishna Salai, West Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax,(Appeals)-10, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 034. Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 034. 3. The Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, No.2, Tannery Road, Somasundaram Nagar, Pallavaram, Chennai- 600 043. W.P.No.8209 of 2020 andWMP Nos.9785,9787 and 9792 of 2020 SV(CO)GS(07/07/2020)