Sri A.manoharan v. Income Tax Officer,Non Corporate Ward – 17 (2),Room

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN Sri A.Manoharan ...Appellant -vs- Income Tax Officer,Non Corporate Ward – 17 (2),Room No.506, 5[th] Floor, BSNL Building, Greams Road,Chennai – 600 006. ...Respondent Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961,against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai'C' Bench, dated 11.01.2019, passed in S.P.No.415/CHNY/2018 inITA.No.3512/CHNY/2018 against the proceedings of the Income Taxofficer, Non Corporate Ward -17(2), Chennai – 600 006,dt.16.11.2018 and made in PAN /2015-16 for theAssessment year 2015-16; and against the Appellate order of theCommissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-5, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034, dt:28.09.2019 and made inITA.No.178/CIT(A)-5/2017-18 for the Assessment year 2015-2016. Assessee has filed this Appeal under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act,1961, raising the purported SubstantialQuestions of Law, arising from the Interlocutory Order passed bythe learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 11.01.2019,whereby, the learned Tribunal dismissed the Stay Petition filed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ along with the main Appeal by the Assessee for Assessment Year2015-2016. The Questions of Law raised are as under : (1) Whether, in law, the Hon'ble Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in concluding that thereis no prima facie case for the Appellant just becausethe Construction Agreement is not on stamp paper ?(2) Whether, in law, the Appellate Tribunal wasright in concluding that there is no prima facie casefor the Appellant in one ground without consideringdelving into other grounds pending before it foradjudication on merits ? (3) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law the AppellateTribunal was right in dismissing the Stay Petitionfiled by the Appellant, without adjudicating specificgrounds of stay raised before it ? 2. Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counselfor the Respondent-Revenue, has submitted before us that hearingof the main Appeal itself is coming up before the learnedTribunal, Chennai Bench, on 29.04.2019. 3. However, learned counsel for the Appellant-Assesseesubmitted that Hearing Date of the Appeal is now fixed for23.05.2019 as per the Notice served upon the Assessee. 4. Be that as it may. Having heard the learned counselfor the parties, we are not inclined to interfere with theInterlocutory Order passed by the learned Tribunal in thisAppeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961, aswe do not find any Substantial Questions of Law arising forconsideration by this Court. The order passed by the learnedTribunal in the Stay Petition essentially remains discretionary.5. Learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that theAssessee has already paid 28% of the disputed demand underAppeal before the learned Tribunal and that the Assessee isfurther willing to deposit remaining 22% so as to bring depositagainst the disputed demand up to 50% and subject to suchdeposit the respondent-Department may be directed not to takeany coercive measures for recovery of the entire demand. 6. As is stated already, though we would not normallyinterfere with the Interlocutory Order passed by the learnedTribunal, in view of the aforesaid submission, we order thatsubject to deposit of 50% of the disputed demand by the Assesseewithin a period of three weeks from today, which payment shallremain subject to final decision of the learned Tribunal, therespondent-Department shall not take any coercive measures torecover remaining 50% of the demand against the Assessee. Wealso request the learned Tribunal to decide the Appeal itself asexpeditiously as possible, preferably within six months fromtoday. 6. As is stated already, though we would not normallyinterfere with the Interlocutory Order passed by the learnedTribunal, in view of the aforesaid submission, we order thatsubject to deposit of 50% of the disputed demand by the Assesseewithin a period of three weeks from today, which payment shallremain subject to final decision of the learned Tribunal, therespondent-Department shall not take any coercive measures torecover remaining 50% of the demand against the Assessee. Wealso request the learned Tribunal to decide the Appeal itself asexpeditiously as possible, preferably within six months fromtoday. 7. Appeal of the Assessee stands disposed ofaccordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.No.5866of 2019 is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) dixit //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward – 17 (2), Room No.506, 5[th] Floor, BSNL Building, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006. 2.Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench, Chennai. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals -5), 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. +1cc to Mr.K.Senguttuvan, Advocate, S.R.No.28397+1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate, S.R.No.28327T.C.A.No.221 OF 2019PA(CO)RRS(31/05/2019) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/