R.darampal Pandia,M/S.hermes India (Madras) v. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai – V

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN (Through Video Conferencing) R.Darampal Pandia,M/s.Hermes India (Madras)No.117, Nyniappa Naicken Street,Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai – V, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – V, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 600 034. 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Business Circle X, Kannammai Building, 3[rd] Floor, No.611, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 006. Business Circle X, Kannammai Building, 3[rd] Floor, No.611, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 006. 3.The Central Board of Direct Taxes, rep. by its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi. ... Respondents rep. by its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi. ... Respondents (third respondent impleaded as suo motu bythis order) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, tocall for the records in F.No.CC-V/24 ((9)/2010-11 dated29.10.2010 on the file of the first respondent and quash thesame and direct the said respondent to waive the interest leviedunder Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For Petitioner : Mr.Pramod Kumar Chopda For Respondents: Mr.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar Standing Counsel. O R D E R The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenged theimpugned order 29.10.2010 passed by the first respondent underSection 119(2)(a) read with Section 234A, 234B and 234C of theIncome Tax Act, 1961. The impugned has been passed by the firstrespondent for the Assessement Years 1999-2000 to 2005-2006,whereby, the request of the petitioner for waiver of interesthas been rejected. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner was in the businessof sale of antibiotics, chemicals and prawn feeds in theaquaculture and fisheries industries. The case of thepetitioner is that predominantly the business in aquaculturesuffered heavily on account of closure of fisheries and hatchesdue to the decision of the Hon'ble Suprme Court and that thebusiness itself was very volatile and therefore the petitionerhad with difficulty paid some amount as advance tax for theseAssessment Years. 3. The petitioner however could not pay a entire tax in timeand that by the time the department visited the petitioner'spremises on 14.12.2004 and caused survey under Section 133A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961, the business was in shambles.Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with a notice underSection 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore, thepetitioner filed returns and paid the tax. It is furthersubmitted that for the Assessment Years 1999-2000 and 2005-2006,the tax was paid before filing of the returns pursuant tonotices issued under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.It is further submitted that the petitioner was a youngentrepreneurs and was not fully aware of the consequence of notfiling returns in time and/or paying advance tax on time. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner's auditordid not guide him property regarding his liability under theIncome Tax Act, 1961. It is submitted that the petitioner wasaged only 28 to 29 years during the Assessment Years. His familymet with crises and the petitioner's auditor also failed to filethe Income Tax Returns of the taxable income of the petitionerwhich was resulted in a heavy tax liability on the petitioner. 5. On behalf of the petitioner, it was further submittedthat after the notices were issued, the petitioner paid a totalsum of Rs.2,05,12,164/- to the credit of the Central Governmenttowards the tax liability of these Assessment Years andtherefore, the petitioner's case merits waiver from payments ofinterest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income TaxAct, 1961. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. On behalf of the petitioner, it was further submittedthat after the notices were issued, the petitioner paid a totalsum of Rs.2,05,12,164/- to the credit of the Central Governmenttowards the tax liability of these Assessment Years andtherefore, the petitioner's case merits waiver from payments ofinterest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income TaxAct, 1961. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. It is submitted that the erstwhile Chief Commissioner ofIncome Tax – V vide his communication dated 13.06.2008 bearingreference C.No.C.C.V/24(9)/24(10)/2008-09 had found that thepayment of interest by the petitioner would cause in unduehardship to the petitioner and recommended waiver of interest topetitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew myattention to the recommendation of the then first respondentwhich reads as under:- “5. This is the case of genuine harship inthe unusual circumstances. After the survey on14.12.2004, the assessee's business was hit byunforeseen natural calamity, viz, tsunami on26.12.2004. As mentioned above, the assesseewas not able to collect substantial amount fromthe Debtors and substantial portion of tradedebts had to be written off as bad debts Hisbusiness turnover too was adversely affected.The assessee's two properties had already beenattached by the Department. The fair marketvalue of the two properties, as declared by theassessee and Rs.3,90,00,000/- (property atKilpauk Garden Road, Chennai) and Rs.84,00,000/-(property at Kannathur Reddy Kuppam Village,Kancheepuram) aggregating to Rs.4,74,00,000 inaggregate as on 07.05.2008. The assessee iswilling to dispose off any of the two propertiesto meet his tax liabilities. It may be mentionedher that the assessee has not gone bck on hisdeclarations during the survey and filed thereturns of income accordingly. He has alsocooperated in completion of assessments, despitehis adverse position. 6. None of the clause / sub clausesmentioned in the Board's order dated 26.06.2006issued under section 119(2)(a) read with Rule111b of the I.T.Rules, as such is found to beapplicable to the circumstnces under which thecase of the assessee is placed. Theseclauses/subclasses appear to be not inconsonance with the terms of Sec.119(2)(a) asmentioned in para 4 above. However, in view ofthe above facs and in the circumstances, I am ofthe considered opinion that this is a case ofnot only “genuine hardship” but also a typicalcase of “public interest” too as well. In thisconnection, kind attention of your goodself isinvited to the Board's order u/s 119(2)(a) in F.No.275/33/2008-IT(B) dated 13.06.2008 waivingsuch interests considering the genuine hardshipof Kashmiri migrants. It is therefore,requested that the Board may consider to relaxthe guidelines issued vide order dated 26[th] June2006 in this case for waiver of interest infull, after the payment of entire income tax(the principal component of the demandoutstanding in this case). Necessaryinstructions may kindly be issued in thisregard”. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitsthat the petitioner is entitled for waiver of interest in termsof the Board Circular F.No.400/29/2002/IT (B) dated 26.06.2006under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that thecase of the petitioner would fall within the circumstancesspecified in Clause 2(b) of the aforesaid circular which readsas under :- 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitsthat the petitioner is entitled for waiver of interest in termsof the Board Circular F.No.400/29/2002/IT (B) dated 26.06.2006under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that thecase of the petitioner would fall within the circumstancesspecified in Clause 2(b) of the aforesaid circular which readsas under :- 2. The class of incomes or class of cases inwhich the reduction or waiver of interest undersection 234A or section 234B or, as the case maybe, section 234C can be considered, are asfollows :-(a) ...................(b) Any income chargeable to income-tax underany head of income, other than "Capital gains"is received or accrued after due date of paymentof the first or subsequent instalments ofadvance tax which was neither anticipated norwas in the contemplation of the assessee, andthe advance tax on such income is paid in theremaining instalment or instalments, and theChief Commissioner/Director General is satisfiedon the facts and circumstances of the case thatthis is a fit case for reduction or waiver ofthe interest chargeable under section 234C ofthe Income-tax Act. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitsthat despite loss of business opportunities after Tsunami on24.12.2004, the petitioner had paid the income tax ofRs.2,05,12,164/- on various dates and particularly submits thatfor the Assessment Years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, the arrears oftax were paid before the filing of the returns. Therefore, tothat extent, the petitioner should be granted waiver of interestin terms of the aforesaid Circular of Central Board of DirectTax. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioneralternatively submitted that the interest calculated by therespondent was exaggerated and contrary to the rate prescribedunder the Successive of Finance Act. He submits that theinterest that has been calculated for the Assessment Years 1999-2000 to 2005-2006 was exorbitant. The interest calculated inexcess was to be reversed as it was contrary to the ratesprescribed under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income TaxAct, 1961. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that lawrelating to Circular is no longer res integra and drew myattention to the following decisions:- 12. He submits that the impugned order of the firstrespondent is in the line of the decision of S.Nagoor Babu @Mono case referred to supra and therefore, this Writ Petition isliable to be dismissed. That apart, the learned counsel for therespondent submits that the petitioner was prompted in payingits tax under the provisions of TNGST Act, 1959 and therefore,it cannot be said that the petitioner was not aware of the taxliability. 13. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel for therespondent submitted that the Writ Petition filed by thepetitioner should be dismissed as the petitioner has notsatisfied the requirements with regard to waiver of interestunder the provisions. 14. I have considered the arguments of the learned counselfor the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.The CBDT Circular dated 26.06.2006 bearing referenceF.No.400/29/2002-IT (B) under which the petitioner is sought forwaiver from the first respondent reads as under:- 13. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel for therespondent submitted that the Writ Petition filed by thepetitioner should be dismissed as the petitioner has notsatisfied the requirements with regard to waiver of interestunder the provisions. 14. I have considered the arguments of the learned counselfor the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.The CBDT Circular dated 26.06.2006 bearing referenceF.No.400/29/2002-IT (B) under which the petitioner is sought forwaiver from the first respondent reads as under:- In exercise of the powers conferred underclause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 119 ofIncome-tax Act, 1961, Central Board of DirectTaxes, hereby directs that the Chief Commissionerof Income-tax and Director General of Income-taxmay reduce or waive interest charged under section234A or section 234B or section 234C of the Act inthe classes of cases or classes of incomespecified in paragraph 2 of this Order for theperiod and to the extent the Chief Commissioner ofIncome-tax/Director General of Income-tax may deemfit. However, no reduction or waiver of suchinterest shall be ordered unless the assessee hasfiled the return of income for the relevantassessment year and paid the entire income-tax(principal component of demand) due on the incomeas assessed. The Chief Commissioner of Income-taxor Director General of Income-tax may also imposeany other conditions as deemed fit for the saidreduction or waiver of interest. 2. The class of incomes or class of cases inwhich the reduction or waiver of interest undersection 234A or section 234B or, as the case maybe, section 234C can be considered, are as follows: (a) Where during the course of proceedings forsearch and seizure under section 132 of theIncome-tax Act, or otherwise, the books of accountand other incriminating documents have beenseized, and the assessee has been unable tofurnish the return of income for the previousyear, during which the action under section 132has taken place, within the time specified in thisbehalf, and the Chief Commissioner/DirectorGeneral is satisfied, having regard to the factsand circumstances of the case, that the delay in furnishing such return of income cannot reasonablybe attributed to the assessee. (b) Any income chargeable to income-tax underany head of income, other than "Capital gains" isreceived or accrued after due date of payment ofthe first or subsequent instalments of advance taxwhich was neither anticipated nor was in thecontemplation of the assessee, and the advance taxon such income is paid in the remaining instalmentorinstalments,andtheChiefCommissioner/Director General is satisfied on thefacts and circumstances of the case that this is afit case for reduction or waiver of the interestchargeable under section 234C of the Income-taxAct. (c) Where any income was not chargeable toincome-tax in the case of an assessee on the basisof any order passed by the High Court within whosejurisdiction he is assessable to income-tax, andas result, he did not pay income-tax in relationto such income in any previous year, andsubsequently, in consequence of any retrospectiveamendment of law or the decision of the SupremeCourt of India, or as the case may be, a decisionof a Larger Bench of the jurisdictional High Court(which was not challenged before the Supreme Courtand has become final), in any assessment orreassessment proceedings the advance tax paid bythe assessee during such financial year is foundto be less than the amount of advance tax payableon his current income, and the assessee ischargeable to interest under section 234B orsection 234C, and the Chief Commissioner/DirectorGeneral is satisfied that this is a fit case forreduction or waiver of such interest. (d) Where a return of income could not befiled by the assessee due to unavoidablecircumstances and such return of income is filedvoluntarily by the assessee or his legal heirswithout detection by the Assessing Officer. 3. The class of cases referred to inparagraphs 2(a) and 2(d) are specified only forthe purposes of waiver of interest charged undersection 234A of the Income-tax Act. 4. Earlier Orders under section 119(2)(a)dated 23-5-1996 and 30-1-1997 on the subject standsuperseded by this Order. If any petition in thepast has been rejected because the Board had notissued this direction earlier, such petition maybe reconsidered and decided in accordance withthis Order. If any petition in the past wasallowed in accordance with the Orders undersection 119(2)(a) dated 23-5-1996 and 30-1-1997,such Orders allowing waiver should not bereopened/revised as per the guidelines containedin this Order. 15. There is no doubt that the petitioner had not onlydelayed in filing returns but had also delayed in paying advancetax and tax under self-assessment procedure therefore interestunder Sections 234 A, 234B and 234C were attracted. Thepetitioner has given reason which according to him warrants asympathetic consideration of the view. 16. It is further submitted that the petitioner was a youngperson aged between 29 and 30 years and was a first timeentrepreneur and did not realise the seriousness of not filingthe returns and paying income tax in time and was not properlyadvised by its auditor to file returns in time. It is furthersubmitted that the nature of business in the aquaculture washighly volatile and was subject to several vagaries and most ofthe customers were farmers engaged in prawn culture whoinvariably delayed in making payments and therefore to recoverthe past dues from them, he had to keep the business going bymaking credit sales and thus the petitioner did not have surpluscash to pay tax even though the petitioner had booked profit onpaper. 17. It is further submitted that after the survey wasconducted under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 duringOctober, 2004, the petitioner suffered huge losses due toTsunami and had to write off bad debts and despite the same, thepetitioner paid the tax due for these Assessment Years. 18. It is submitted that as an individual, he was incapableof raising working capital from banks and was thus incapacitatedfrom paying tax in time and also lacked the imagination toborrow capital from banks to pay tax liability and therefore theinterest imposed in the assessment orders pursuant to noticesissued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to thepetitioner should be waived. 19. It is further submitted that for some of the AssessmentYears, the petitioner has also paid tax in excess and therefore,the petitioner’s case may be considered sympathetically eventhough the petitioner’s case may not be covered by foursituations in the Notification dated 26.06.2006 issued by theCentral Board of Direct Taxes. 20. It is further submitted that the then Chief Commissionerof Income Tax had also considered the hardship faced by thepetitioner and had written a letter dated 13.06.2008 to theCentral Board of Direct Taxes to relax the guidelines issued byorder/notification dated 26.06.2006 as a special case to thepetitioner for full waiver of interest. 21. The Honourable Supreme Court in Commissioner of IncomeTax Vs. M Chandrashekar, [1985] 20 Taxman 3, while consideringthe scope of proviso to Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961as it stood during the period in dispute in the aforesaid case,held that interest becomes payable if the assessee has, withoutreasonable cause, failed to file returns within the timeallowed. 20. It is further submitted that the then Chief Commissionerof Income Tax had also considered the hardship faced by thepetitioner and had written a letter dated 13.06.2008 to theCentral Board of Direct Taxes to relax the guidelines issued byorder/notification dated 26.06.2006 as a special case to thepetitioner for full waiver of interest. 21. The Honourable Supreme Court in Commissioner of IncomeTax Vs. M Chandrashekar, [1985] 20 Taxman 3, while consideringthe scope of proviso to Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961as it stood during the period in dispute in the aforesaid case,held that interest becomes payable if the assessee has, withoutreasonable cause, failed to file returns within the timeallowed. 22. The Delhi High Court in Prannoy Roy Vs. Commissioner ofIncome Tax, (2002) 254 ITR 755, has traced out the history ofthe amendments brought to the provisions of the Income Tax Act,1961 in the year 1987 with the insertion of Sections 234A, 234Band 234C by the Amending Act, 1987. There the Delhi High Courthas noted that Section 234A was an amalgam of Sections 139(8),271(1)(a) and Section 140A(3) of the Act as it stood then. 23. The Court has merely held that the Section 234A cannotbe construed to be penal nature in the background of insertionof Section 271F in the year 1998 vide Finance (No 2) Act, 1998.The Court ultimately held that interest would be payable in acase where tax has not been deposited prior to the due date offiling of income tax returns. Therefore, the said decision ofthe Delhi High Court does not further the case of the petitioner. 24. Similarly, the Gujarat High Court in the case ofBharathhai B Shah Vs. Income Tax Officer, [2013] 31 Taxmann.com34 relies on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Prannoy RoyVs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2002) 254 ITR 755. It is alsoof no relevance to the facts of the present case of thepetitioner as the tax was paid before the due date for filing ofreturns had expired. There interests waived. It was levied forshort payment of tax under Section 140A of the Income Tax Act,1961. None of the above cited decisions further case of thepetitioner. 25. In my view, the only issue to be considered in thepresent case is whether this Court can overlook the situationscontemplated in Notification dated 26.06.2006 of the CentralBoard of Direct Taxes and grant complete or partial waiver oftax to the petitioner considering nature of business of thepetitioner and the age of the petitioner by applying the ratioin Tvl. SonMac Motor Finance Ltd. Vs. Chief Commissioner ofIncome Tax, [2020] 116 taxmann.com 437 (Madras) and in thedecision of the Gujarat High Court in Bhanuben Panchal andChandrben Panchal Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, [2004]136 Taxman 237 (Guj). 26. In Tvl. SonMac Motor Finance Ltd Vs. Chief Commissionerof Income Tax referred to supra, this Court had relaxed theconditions in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the casewhich incapacitated the said company/assessee from filingreturns and/or paying tax in time as it had been wound up by anorder of the Court which order was subsequently set aside in anappeal before the Division Bench. 26. In Tvl. SonMac Motor Finance Ltd Vs. Chief Commissionerof Income Tax referred to supra, this Court had relaxed theconditions in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the casewhich incapacitated the said company/assessee from filingreturns and/or paying tax in time as it had been wound up by anorder of the Court which order was subsequently set aside in anappeal before the Division Bench. 27. In Bhanuben Panchal and Chandrben Panchal Vs. ChiefCommissioner of Income referred to supra, the Court overlookedthe conditions of Notification dated 23.05.1996 issued underSection 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The particularcircumstances which impelled the Court to extend olive branch tothe assessee there was the age of the assessee who was in heradvanced age of 78 years who faced tragedy and catastrophewithin the family and was unaware of the income tax liabilitywhich was handled by her husband until his death. The Courttherefore considered that there were unavoidable circumstancesdue to which the returns could not be filed in time andtherefore granted 75% waiver from payment of interest underSection 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 28. There the Commissioner of Income Tax had already granteda waiver of 50% to the petitioner by applying Clause (e) ofNotification dated 23.05.1996 which reads as under:-(e)Where a return of income could not be filed bythe assessee you do unavoidable circumstances andsuch return of income is filed voluntary by theassessee or his legal heirs without detection by theAssessing Officer. 29. The above clause is similar to Clause (d) of CBDT‘sNotification dated 26.06.2006 which was in force during theperiod in dispute. Though some amount of latitude and discretionis vested with the officers, such discretion is to be exercisedcautiously and cannot be overlooked while granting waiver. 30. As an officer of the Income Tax Department, the firstrespondent is also not expected to overlook limitation under thesaid Notification. Therefore, the first respondent also cannotgo beyond the scope of the aforesaid Notification issued by theCentral Board of Direct Taxes. Therefore, there is no error inthe impugned order. 31. The petitioner appears to be genuine as has been notedby the then Chief Commissioner of Income Tax in hiscommunication dated 30.06.2008 to the Central Board of DirectTaxes. He has also recommended waiver of interest for thepetitioner. 32. It should also not be forgotten that errant assesseelike the petitioner may have however contributed to the economyunknowingly by providing employment in the unorganised sector.Therefore, their contribution cannot be ignored altogether. 33. The petitioner deserves a chance to rehabilitate himselfunder the liberalised atmosphere. Therefore, to meet the ends ofjustice, this Court is inclined to direct the Central Board ofDirect Taxes to re-visit the norms for relaxation / waiver ofinterest. 34. Payment of tax and the compliance with the tax laws bythe assessees whether under direct or indirect tax still remainsbig challenge in the country. This could be partially attributedto the complex nature of the provisions in the tax enactmentsand higher rate of tax which either encourage the assessees toresort to tax avoidance and/or they choose to remain ignorantand continue to evade tax until they are issued with notice.Either way, collection of tax is a casualty. 35. Tax friendly regime with simplified tax procedure istherefore the need of the hour with a liberalized outlook. Incase of genuine hardship, a liberalized mechanism should beevolved to rehabilitate errant tax assessee like the petitionerwho show remorse and cooperate with the tax department andagrees to pay tax. 34. Payment of tax and the compliance with the tax laws bythe assessees whether under direct or indirect tax still remainsbig challenge in the country. This could be partially attributedto the complex nature of the provisions in the tax enactmentsand higher rate of tax which either encourage the assessees toresort to tax avoidance and/or they choose to remain ignorantand continue to evade tax until they are issued with notice.Either way, collection of tax is a casualty. 35. Tax friendly regime with simplified tax procedure istherefore the need of the hour with a liberalized outlook. Incase of genuine hardship, a liberalized mechanism should beevolved to rehabilitate errant tax assessee like the petitionerwho show remorse and cooperate with the tax department andagrees to pay tax. 36. Recession in the economy and seasonal crisis peculiar toan industry also contribute to such evasion. It has also buriedmany entrepreneurs and their industry in the past. It has neverbeen easy for an individual to set up a business and survive theonslaught of the time and vageries of competition and globalrecessions. 37. A tax friendly regime which not only collects taxresponsibly but also allows a deviant assessee to rehabilitatethemselves will not only spur growth in the economy but willalso instil a sense of pride and dignity among such assessees inparticipating in the nation building by contributing to therevenue to the Government. 38. The legislatives have also been rolling out severalschemes including Voluntary Disclosure Schemes and latest VivadSe Vishwas Scheme under the Vivad Se Vishwas (VSV) Act, 2020 toencourage evaders some reprieve. 39. Therefore, this Court is inclined to implead the CentralBoard of Direct Taxes suo motu as the third respondent. TheCentral Board of Direct Taxes may examine whether theNotification dated 26.06.2006 bearing reference F.No.400/29/2002–IT(B) issued under Section 119(2)(a) read with Rule 111b of theIncome Tax Rules, can be further relaxed and suitable amendmentcan be issued to deal with the situations like the petitioner. 40. The officers responsible for granting partial orcomplete waiver under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961may be given more discretion to grant waiver, so that, assesseeslike petitioner do not continue to be defaulters despite havingpaid the tax. The scheme under Section 119 of the Income TaxAct, 1961 can be further liberalized. 41. The third respondent Central Board of Direct Taxes mayalso consider recommendation of the then Chief Commissioner ofIncome Tax who by his communication dated 30.06.2008 hadexhorted the third respondent Board to relax the conditions ofthe Notification dated 26.06.2006 issued under Section 119(2(a)as the special category as was done in the case of Kashmirimigrants while issuing fresh guidelines pursuant to this order.It is made clear that until such fresh guidelines are issued,operation of the existing guidelines in force shall not beaffected. 42. The third respondent Central Board of Direct Taxes maytherefore revisit Notification dated 26.06.2006 bearingreference F.No.400/29/2002/IT (B) issued under Section 119(2(a)and may issue fresh guidelines taking note of the above factors. 43. This exercise may be carried out by the third respondentCentral Board of Direct Taxes within a period of six months fromdate of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending suchconsideration by the third respondent Central Board of DirectTaxes, the second respondent shall maintain the status quo andnot proceed against the petitioner. The petitioner shall be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ informed of the outcome of the fresh guidelines on way or theother. 44. The above Writ Petition stands disposed of with theaboveobservation.Nocost.Consequently,connectedMiscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar jen 43. This exercise may be carried out by the third respondentCentral Board of Direct Taxes within a period of six months fromdate of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending suchconsideration by the third respondent Central Board of DirectTaxes, the second respondent shall maintain the status quo andnot proceed against the petitioner. The petitioner shall be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ informed of the outcome of the fresh guidelines on way or theother. 44. The above Writ Petition stands disposed of with theaboveobservation.Nocost.Consequently,connectedMiscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar jen To1.The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai – V, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 600 034.2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Business Circle X, Kannammai Building, 3[rd] Floor, No.611, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 006. 3.The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi.+1CC to M/s.Hema Muralikrishnan, Advocate (SR No.23873)+1CC to Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda, Advocate (SR No.24085) W.P.No.28818 of 2010and M.P.No.1 of 2010 RLD (CO)PR (20/07/2021)