Radhe Govind Bajpai v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax –

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (T) No. 48 of 2018 Radhe Govind Bajpai, aged about 54 years, S/o Late Shri Kashi PrasadBajpai, 84, BSP Market, Risali, Bhilai Nagar, P.S. Nevai Bhilai, District Durg(C.G.)- 490006 ---- Petitioner Versus 1. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 2, Central Revenue Building, CivilLines, Raipur, P.S. Civil Lines, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.)- 492001Lines, Raipur, P.S. Civil Lines, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.)- 492001 2. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Central Revenue Building, CivilLines, Raipur, P.S. Civil Lines, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.)- 492001Lines, Raipur, P.S. Civil Lines, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.)- 492001 3. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 1(1), 32/32 Bungalows, P. O. CivicCentre, P. S. - 6, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)- 490006Centre, P. S. - 6, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)- 490006 --- Respondents For Petitioner:For Respondents: Mr. S. R. Rao and Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate.Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Advocate. 02/04/18 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 1.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit thatpetitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 246(A) of the Income TaxAct, 1961 before the Commissioner of Income Tax on 12.01.2018 againstthe assessment order dated 13.12.2017 and has also deposited the disputeddemand but till date the appeal has not been heard and coercive steps arebeing taken against the petitioner, therefore, the respondent authorities maybe directed to consider and dispose of the appeal expeditiously. 2.On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents wouldsubmit that as pre-condition 20% of the disputed demand has already beendeposited by the petitioner and the remaining 80% would be stayed till the Priyanka appeal is decided. 3.I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gonethrough the records with utmost circumspection. 4.The learned counsel appearing for revenue has fairly made astatement that 20% of the disputed demand has already been deposited bythe petitioner and rest will not be recovered and the appeal will be decidedexpeditiously. In view of the statement made, the writ petition is disposed ofwith liberty to appellate authority to decide the appeal expeditiously. 6.With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposedof. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge