Th] Floor, Dr.radhkrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004 v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.04.2018 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM Writ Petition Nos.6040 to 6052 of 2018and W.M.P.Nos.7441, 7443, 7445, 7447, 7449, 7451, 7452, 7454, 7456 & 7458 of 2018 Orders reserved on Orders pronounced on 23.04.201828.04.2018 M/s.Vasan Health Care Pvt., Ltd.,Rep., by its Managing Director,Dr.A.M.Arun,S/o. Thiru.A.R.Murugaiah,No.70, Lancor West Minister, 4[th] Floor, Dr.Radhkrishnan Salai,Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. .. Petitioner in WP.No.6040 to 6045 of 2018Vs. 1. Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCentral Circle-2(1)Central Circle-2(1) Investigation Wing, Room No.122, 1[st] Floor, New No.46, M.G.Road, Chennai – 600 034. 2. Principal Commissioner of Income TaxCentral Range-2, III Floor, No.46 (Old No.108), Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 600 034. 3. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18 Aayakar Bavan, Aayakar Bavan, No.46, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 600 034. 4. The Manager, Axis Bank, No.82, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai -18. .. Respondents in WP.No.6040 to 6045 of 2018 R4-impleaded as per order dated 10.04.2018 in CMP.No.9429/18 inW.P.No.6040 of 2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Dr.A.M.ArunS/o.Mr.A.R.Murugaiah,199, St.Marys Road,Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018... Petitioner in WP.6046to 6052 of 2018 1.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1) Investigation Wing, Room No.122, 1[st] Floor, New No.46, M.G.Road, Chennai-34. 2.Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-2, III Floor, No.46 (Old No.108) Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034. 3.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-18, Aayakar Bavan, No.46, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034... Respondents in WP.No.6046 to 6052 to 2018 Prayer in W.P.No.6040 to 6052 of 2018:-Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,to call for the records in C.No.2802/C-2/2017-18, dated06.03.2018, for Assessment Year 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13,2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 on the file of the secondrespondent and quash the same and direct the second respondentto grant stay of collection of outstanding tax demand pendingdisposal of the appeal before the third respondent. As the issues involved in both the Writ Petitions a more orless identical in the sense, the petitioners/assessees havechallenged the orders passed by the Principal Commissioner ofIncome Tax in stay petitions filed by them, and the petitionersbeing the Company and its Managing Director, they were heardtogether and are disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner in W.P.Nos.6040 to 6045 of 2018 is aprivate limited company, which has established Eye CareHospitals in different cities and States. The petitioner inW.P.Nos.6046 to 6052 of 2018, is the Managing Director ofprivate limited company. 3. The assessment, in respect of the private limited companywas completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153(C) readwith Section 153A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred toas “Act”) by order dated 29.12.2017, for the assessment years2011-12 to 2016-17. On the same date, an order of provisionalattachment of the immovable properties held in the name of thecompany was passed. On receipt of the order of assessment, thepetitioner sent a communication dated 22.01.2018, requesting forrectification of mistakes, alleging to be apparent from therecord, by filing petition under Section 154 of the Act. At thetime when the Writ Petitions were filed, these rectificationpetitions were pending, however when they were heard, thelearned Additional Solicitor General of India submitted thatthose petitions have been rejected by order dated 13.04.2018. 4. The company, while in process of filing appeal againstthe assessment orders, filed petition before the AssessingOfficer, namely, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CentralCircle-2(1), praying for stay of the collection of the tax foreach assessment year by petitions dated 23.01.2018. TheAssessing Officer, by order dated 30.01.2018, referring to therevised instruction of CBDT in No.1914, directed the petitionerto pay 20% of the disputed demand, within three days, failingwhich the stay petition will be treated as rejected and recoveryproceedings will be initiated. The petitioner filed appealsbefore the third respondent against the assessment orders on01.02.2018, and on 02.02.2018, submitted a petition before thesecond respondent praying for stay of collection of the taxesfor the relevant assessment years. In the said petition, it wasstated that the company was incorporated several years ago andhas been regular in filing the returns of income and payment ofsubstantial taxes; it has got around 120 branches all over Indiaand 5000 employees including Doctors and support staff; everymonth assessee has to pay salary to the employees and rent at various locations to continue their business and other statutoryliabilities such as electricity charges & water bills andmaintenance of equipment are essential to carry on the services.It was further stated that in the assessment orders, highpitched additions have been made, which could not be anticipatedand the assessee is confident of substantial relief in theappeal. The assessee thus, prayed for grant of stay, statingthat if stay is not granted, they will be put to extremehardship and they would find it difficult to run the day-to-dayaffairs of the company. The petitioner also stated that theyare filing a separte waiver petition for waiver of interest,charge under Section 234A, B & C. 5. While so, the Tax Recovery Officer, Central-2, Chennaiissued prohibitory orders against the Directors of the company,one of whom, the Managing Director, is the petitioner inW.P.Nos.6046 to 6052 of 2018. Roughly about the same time, thepetitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.Nos.4778 to 4783and 4784 to 4790 of 2018, challenging the orders passed by theAssessing Officer, first respondent, directing the petitioner topay 20% of the tax demanded. The Writ Petitions were disposedof by common order dated 05.03.2018, without expressing any viewon the merits of the claim made by the petitioner and onlydirecting the second respondent to consider the applicationsfiled by the petitioner, dated 02.02.2018, praying for stay ofthe demand within a time frame. The second respondent by ordersdated 06.03.2018, directed the petitioner to pay 30% of thedisputed demand and if such payment is made, the balance shallremain stayed till the disposal of the appeal, with the furthercondition that the assessee has to cooperate in the appealproceedings and stay would be reviewed after six months. Thisorder dated 06.03.2018, is impugned in these Writ Petitions. 6. The Writ Petitions were presented on 14.03.2018 and oneday before the date of presentation, on 13.03.2018 thepetitioners filed stay petition before the third respondent,requesting for stay of the entire disputed amount for each ofthe assessment years. While those petitions were pending, thepetitioner has moved these Writ Petitions for admission on19.03.2018. 6. The Writ Petitions were presented on 14.03.2018 and oneday before the date of presentation, on 13.03.2018 thepetitioners filed stay petition before the third respondent,requesting for stay of the entire disputed amount for each ofthe assessment years. While those petitions were pending, thepetitioner has moved these Writ Petitions for admission on19.03.2018. 7. Before the Writ Petitions were heard for admission, on16.03.2018 the third respondent has disposed of the staypetitions by order dated 13.03.2018, directing the petitionersto pay 20% of the total demand. Thus, the petitioner hasapproached all the three respondents, praying for stay and hasalso approached this Court earlier, challenging the order passedby the first respondent, dated 30.01.2018. The first and thethird respondent directed payment of 20% of the disputed tax,whereas the second respondent directed payment of 30% of the disputed tax. The petitioner is before this Court contendingthat the assessments are unduly high pitched and therefore, thisCourt should grant stay of the demands and direct the appeal tobe taken up for disposal. 8. So far as the Writ Petitions filed by the Director,namely, W.P.Nos.6046 to 6052 of 2018, the facts are more or lessidentical. The assessment orders were passed under Section 153Aof the Act for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2016-17, byorders dated 29.12.2017. Even during the assessmentproceedings, the immovable properties of the Directors wereattached by separate orders, dated 29.07.2016 and after theassessment was completed on 29.12.2017 and 04.01.2018, orderunder Section 281B of the Act was passed, provisionallyattaching the immovable properties of the company as well as theDirectors. As in the case of company, the Managing Directoralso filed the petitions for rectification of the assessments,dated 22.01.2018 and moved stay petition before the firstrespondent on 23.01.2018. The petitions for rectification filedby the Managing Director were dismissed by the first respondent,by order dated 30.01.2018. The petitioner approached the firstrespondent by a separate petition dated 23.01.2018, requestingfor stay of the demand, as they are in the process of filingappeal against the assessment orders. The first respondent, byorder dated 30.01.2018, directed the petitioner to pay 20% ofthe tax demand for each of the assessment years. Immediatelythereafter, on 01.02.2018, the petitioner filed appeals asagainst the orders of assessment before the third respondent,and parallelly moved the second respondent for grant of stay.Immediately thereafter, the petitioner along with the companyfiled Writ Petitions challenging the order passed by the firstrespondent, which were disposed of without expressing anythingon merits, but directing the second respondent to consider thepetition filed by the petitioner for grant of stay. The secondrespondent, by order dated 06.03.2018, has directed thepetitioner to pay 30% of the tax demanded for each of theassessment years, which order is impugned in these WritPetitions. Prior to the filing of these Writ Petitions, whichwere presented on 14.03.2018, on 13.03.2018, the petitionerfiled stay petition before the third respondent and moved theWrit Petitions, when the prayer for stay, was pending before thethird respondent. It is not clear as to whether separate ordershave been passed by the third respondent on the stay petitions,as passed in the case of the company by order dated 16.03.2018. 9. Mr.P.H.Arvindh Pandian, learned Senior counsel appearingfor the petitioner elaborately set out the factual matrix andreferred to a tabulated statement given in the affidavit filedin support of the Writ Petitions to demonstrate that theassessments are extremely high pitched assessments as for 9. Mr.P.H.Arvindh Pandian, learned Senior counsel appearingfor the petitioner elaborately set out the factual matrix andreferred to a tabulated statement given in the affidavit filedin support of the Writ Petitions to demonstrate that theassessments are extremely high pitched assessments as for certain years, the number of times, the assessment has beenincreased, is more than 130 times. It is submitted that thesecond respondent ought to have appreciated that instructionNo.96, dated 21.08.1969, read with sub-clause 2(B)(iii) of theinstruction No.1914, dated 02.12.1993, issued by the CBDT vestedpower to grant stay of collection of demand of tax, where theassessment order is high pitched or where genuine hardship islikely to be caused to the petitioner. It is further submittedthat the second respondent grossly erred in referring to clause4(A)(a) of the modified instruction of the CBDT, dated29.02.2016, to enhance the payment to 30% of the disputeddemand. The learned Senior counsel referred to the decision ofthe Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case ofSultan Leather Finishers Pvt., Ltd., vs. Assistant Commissionerof Income Tax, [(1991) 191-ITR-179], wherein the Court observedthat when an application for rectification filed under Section154 of the Act is pending, the Tax Recovery Officer should notproceed with the recovery proceedings. The learned Seniorcounsel further submitted that the assessee company is entitledfor a refund for the assessment year 2017-18 to the tune ofRs.7,42,16,770/-. 10. Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Additional Solicitor Generalof India, assisted by Mr.A.P.Srinivas and Mr.A.N.R.Jayapradhap,learned Standing counsels appearing for the respondentdepartment, submitted that the rectification petitions filed bythe petitioner having been rejected by order dated 13.04.2018,the prayer sought for in the Writ Petition has becomeinfructuous, because, the third respondent, the Commissioner ofAppeals has passed an order dated 16.03.2018, on thepetitioner's stay petition, directing the petitioner to pay 20%of the tax demanded and that order has not been challenged andthe Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed. 11. Without prejudice to the above submission, it issubmitted that the stay petitions were considered by the secondrespondent in a proper manner by taking note of the latestinstruction issued by the CBDT in instruction No.1914, whichalone will be operative as all other earlier instructions havebeen superseded by the latest instruction No.1914. It isfurther submitted that the CBDT instruction provides for andgrants power to the authority to enhance payment of the demandafter considering the facts of the case and the secondrespondent has assigned reasons as to why, he is of the opinionthat the petitioner should pay 30% of the tax demanded. It isfurther submitted that the contention that the petitioner isunder financial constraints and the assessments are high pitchedare totally hypothetical and without any supporting evidence asthe petitioner failed to put forth any evidence to show or provefinancial constraints. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the contention of the petitioner that they areentitled for a refund of more than seven crores is incorrect,since it is a claim made by them while filing the return for theassessment year 2017-18 and the return is yet to be processedand such a contention raised by the petitioner is notsustainable. Therefore, it is submitted that the Writ Petitionsare liable to be dismissed. 12. Mr.O.R.Santhanakrishnan, learned counsel appearing forthe fourth respondent Bank placed before this Court in the formof a typed set of papers, the notice received from the firstrespondent, calling upon them to pay the money to the departmentand it is submitted that the respondent bank has permitted onlyinward remittances and all outward payments have been freezed. submitted that the contention of the petitioner that they areentitled for a refund of more than seven crores is incorrect,since it is a claim made by them while filing the return for theassessment year 2017-18 and the return is yet to be processedand such a contention raised by the petitioner is notsustainable. Therefore, it is submitted that the Writ Petitionsare liable to be dismissed. 12. Mr.O.R.Santhanakrishnan, learned counsel appearing forthe fourth respondent Bank placed before this Court in the formof a typed set of papers, the notice received from the firstrespondent, calling upon them to pay the money to the departmentand it is submitted that the respondent bank has permitted onlyinward remittances and all outward payments have been freezed. 13. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties andcarefully perused the materials placed on record. 14. The factual details set out above, will clearly showthat the petitioners, company as well as the Managing Director,have exhausted all avenues available to them before therespondents. In fact, on certain occasions, there has beenparallel remedies invoked. One such attempt made by thepetitioner has ended against the petitioner with a direction topay a higher percentage of tax demanded, which is the orderdated 16.03.2018, impugned in the Writ Petition. 15. The petitioner initially approached the AssessingOfficer and sought for a stay of the demand of tax. TheAssessing Officer took note of CBDT instruction No.1914,directed the payment of 20% of the demanded tax. Thepetitioners did not comply with the order nor made any attemptto effect partial compliance, but they moved the secondrespondent for an identical relief. Complaining that the secondrespondent did not take action on the petition, they approachedthis Court and filed the Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.4784 to 4794of 2018, challenging the order passed by the Assessing Officerdated 30.01.2018. Unfortunately, the petitioner was notsuccessful before this Court in getting the order set aside andthe Court refused to go into the merits of the matter and onlydirected the second respondent to consider the petition dated02.02.2018. The second respondent considered the matter and haspassed the impugned order increasing the amount to be paid to30% of the tax demanded. Challenging the same, the WritPetitions have been filed and roughly about the same time, thepetitioner moved the third respondent by way of stay petitions.The third respondent has passed an order on 16.03.2018,directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the tax demanded. Thus,the Court would be justified in coming to a prima facieconclusion that the intention of the petitioner is to drag on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the matter and not to comply with the orders passed by theauthorities. It is for the first time before this Court, thepetitioner seriously canvass the issue of financial constrainsand has enclosed the copy of the balance sheet, tentative profitand loss account etc. 16. On a perusal of the orders passed by the threeauthorities, it is seen that the only plea raised before theauthorities was that they are in severe financial crunch due tonon-support of the investors, banks, financial institutions andthe proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directive. Theassessee company would state that they have branches all overcountry and have employed around 5000 people, including Doctorsand staff. In my considered view the said averments made by thepetitioner in their stay petitions, are absolutely vague anddevoid of any substance and materials. 16. On a perusal of the orders passed by the threeauthorities, it is seen that the only plea raised before theauthorities was that they are in severe financial crunch due tonon-support of the investors, banks, financial institutions andthe proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directive. Theassessee company would state that they have branches all overcountry and have employed around 5000 people, including Doctorsand staff. In my considered view the said averments made by thepetitioner in their stay petitions, are absolutely vague anddevoid of any substance and materials. 17. The assessees failed to bear in mind that when theymake a prayer for grant of stay, three principles have to besatisfied. The assessees were bound to show that they have aprima facie case; secondly they have to show that the balance ofconvenience is in their favour and thirdly they will have toprove that if the stay is not granted, they would be put toirreparable hardship. 18. Unfortunately, the assessees, when they drafted the staypetitions, did not bear in mind these basic legal principles andvague averments have been set out, which appears to be notsupported by any material. Thus, the assessees themselves haveto be blamed for creating the present situation and there is nojustification on their part to find fault with the orders passedby the authorities. On a reading of the stay petition filedbefore the first respondent and second respondent, one gets animpression that the matter was not pursued seriously. Had itbeen done, then obviously more care would have been taken topresent the petition in a proper format. Therefore, the secondrespondent was fully justified in making an observation thatmere filing an appeal against the assessment, will not be asufficient reason to stay the recovery of demand. 19. The sheet anchor of the arguments of the learned Seniorcounsel for the petitioner is that the assessments are highpitched. The respondents 1 to 3 were guided and bound by thecircular instruction issued by the CBDT. The guidelines havebeen revised from time to time and therefore, whatever theguidelines, which are in force on the date when the petitionsare considered, would alone be binding upon the AssessingOfficer or the Appellate Authority. The latest of such beingthe Office Memorandum, dated 31.07.2017, which speaks about overpitched assessments and taking note of the feed back received from the Field Authorities, the CBDT revised the standard rateprescribed in office memorandum, dated 29.02.2016, from 15% to20% of the disputed demand, where the demand is contested beforethe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). With regard to theother directions in the office memorandum, dated 29.02.2016, thesame were left in-tact. The guidelines issued by the Board, wasregarding the procedure to be followed for recovery ofoutstanding demand, including the procedure for grant of stay ofdemand. Firstly the instruction states that a demand will bestayed only if there are valid reasons for doing so and merefiling an appeal against the assessment order will not besufficient to stay of the recovery demand. from the Field Authorities, the CBDT revised the standard rateprescribed in office memorandum, dated 29.02.2016, from 15% to20% of the disputed demand, where the demand is contested beforethe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). With regard to theother directions in the office memorandum, dated 29.02.2016, thesame were left in-tact. The guidelines issued by the Board, wasregarding the procedure to be followed for recovery ofoutstanding demand, including the procedure for grant of stay ofdemand. Firstly the instruction states that a demand will bestayed only if there are valid reasons for doing so and merefiling an appeal against the assessment order will not besufficient to stay of the recovery demand. 20. The Board took note of the fact that the FieldAuthorities often insisted on payment of very high proportion ofthe disputed demand before granting stay of the balance demand,often resulting in hardship to the taxpayers and in order tostreamline the process of grant of stay and standardise thequantum of lumpsum payment required to be made by the assesseeas a pre-condition for stay of demand disputed before CIT (A),the modified guidelines were issued. Paragraph 4(A) of theinstruction, dated 29.02.2016, stipulates payment of 15% of thedisputed demand, in cases which do not fall in categorydiscussed in para(B). Para (B) of clause 4 of the instruction,has two parts, namely, sub-clause (a), which deals with cases,where lump sum amount higher than 15% is warranted; sub-clause(b) deals with cases where payment of lump sum amount of lowerthan 15% is warranted. To bring the petitioner's case undersub-clause (b) of Clause 4(B) of the circular instruction dated29.02.2018, they should be able to show that in their case,where addition on the same issue has been deleted by theAppellate Authority office memorandum the earlier year ordecision of a Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court is inthe favour of the assessee. 21. Admittedly, there is no such plea raised by theassessees. In any event, the underlying principles which governthe matter of grant of interim orders have to be borne in mindas guiding principles for the authorities to consider the relieffor grant of stay. The circular instruction binds the AssessingOfficer, but not the Court. The Court can take intoconsideration the facts and circumstances to exercise discretionas to what would be the order, which will protect the interestof the revenue, and at the same time grant a reasonable reliefto the assessee till the appeal is heard and disposed of. Theobject of grant of interim order is to preserve status-quo andnot to make the appellate remedy infructuous or illusory.However, this principle cannot be straight away applied toRevenue matters, where a slight departure is required to beadopted. As pointed out earlier, the petitioner miserably failed to substantiate their contention that they are unable tomobilise funds to comply with the conditions nor they hadbrought out before the authorities as to how they have made outa prima facie case for grant of an unconditional stay or forthat matter how the direction of the Assessing Officer to pay20% of the disputed demand, is an onerous condition. Merependency of an appeal before the third respondent is no groundto state that there should be stay of the recovery of the taxdemanded. failed to substantiate their contention that they are unable tomobilise funds to comply with the conditions nor they hadbrought out before the authorities as to how they have made outa prima facie case for grant of an unconditional stay or forthat matter how the direction of the Assessing Officer to pay20% of the disputed demand, is an onerous condition. Merependency of an appeal before the third respondent is no groundto state that there should be stay of the recovery of the taxdemanded. 22. So far as the plea regarding high pitched assessment, itis undoubtedly true that in some of the years, the assessmentsof the assessee company are high pitched. Nevertheless thisCourt cannot make a roving enquiry into the same and examinewhether the additions made by the Assessing Officer werejustified as those are issues to be adjudicated before the CIT(A). However, taking note of the fact that the assessee companyhas established Eye Hospitals in various parts of the State andelsewhere in the country and it is stated that there are severalpersons employed with them and the hospitals are functioning andthere are several senior citizens, who require care andattention, this Court is inclined to grant one more opportunityto the assessee company to show their bonafide and if they doso, this court is inclined to direct the assessee company toonce again approach the third respondent for appropriate relief.Since the third respondent, CIT(A), is seized of with the appealpetition, the order passed by the second respondent, beingearlier than the order dated 16.03.2018, passed by the thirdrespondent, in my considered view, the order dated 16.03.2018,shall govern the proceedings and not the impugned order dated06.03.2018. 23. For such reason, it is unnecessary to interfere with thesaid order dated 06.03.2018 as already the third respondent,before whom the appeal is pending against the assessment, hasalready passed an order, dated 16.03.2018. This order is intune with the order passed by the Assessing Officer and thepetitioners have not questioned the order till date. With aview to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings and to ensure thatthe interest of revenue is also protected at the same time, theoperation of the company does not come to a stand still, thisCourt is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition by passing theappropriate orders. The reasons assigned by this Court withregard to orders passed in respect of the assessee company cannot be extended to the Managing Director, petitioner inW.P.Nos.6046 to 6052 of 2018. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ demanded for each of the assessment years. The petitioner isgranted three weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order to effect such payment. On complying with the saidcondition, the assessee company is entitled to file a fresh staypetition before the third respondent clearly explaining as tohow they are justified in seeking for an interim order alongwith supportive documents and on presentation of the petition,it is open to the third respondent to pass appropriate orders onmerits and in accordance with the law. (ii) W.P.Nos.6046 to 6052 of 2018, being devoid of merits,are dismissed. This is so because, the reasons assigned by thecompany cannot be made applicable to its Managing Director, anindividual. The petitioner/assessee is directed to pay 20% ofthe tax demanded for each of the assessment years and suchpayment shall be made within a period of three weeks from thedate of receipt of a copy of this order, for being entitled tostay of the balance outstanding tax. If the petitioner fails tocomply with the said condition within the time permitted, thebenefit of this order will not enure to the petitioner/assesseeand the respondents Department is at liberty to initiate actionfor recovery. (iii) Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions areclosed. No costs. (ii) W.P.Nos.6046 to 6052 of 2018, being devoid of merits,are dismissed. This is so because, the reasons assigned by thecompany cannot be made applicable to its Managing Director, anindividual. The petitioner/assessee is directed to pay 20% ofthe tax demanded for each of the assessment years and suchpayment shall be made within a period of three weeks from thedate of receipt of a copy of this order, for being entitled tostay of the balance outstanding tax. If the petitioner fails tocomply with the said condition within the time permitted, thebenefit of this order will not enure to the petitioner/assesseeand the respondents Department is at liberty to initiate actionfor recovery. (iii) Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions areclosed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar pbnTo 1. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1) Investigation Wing, Room No.122, 1[st] Floor, New No.46, M.G.Road, Chennai – 600 034. 2. Principal Commissioner of Income TaxCentral Range-2, III Floor, No.46 (Old No.108), Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 600 034. 3. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18 Aayakar Bavan, No.46, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 600 034. Aayakar Bavan, No.46, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 600 034. 4. The Manager, Axis Bank, No.82, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai -18. No.82, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai -18. +2ccs to Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Advocate, S.R.No.32671+13ccs to Mr.G.Baskar, Advocate, S.R.No.32135 & 32136 +1cc to Mr.O.R.Santhana Krishnan, Advocate, S.R.No.32590 Writ Petition Nos.6040 to 6052 of 2018 GMR(CO)CS/10/05/18