Wp/1923/2013 Of M/S. Janapriya Properties Private Limited v. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION Nos.1922 and 1923 of 2013 Date: 29.07.2013 Between: M/s. Janapriya Properties Private Limited,Hyderabad. ….Petitioner And The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Hyderabad. …Respondent HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINIANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION Nos.1922 and 1923 of 2013 COMMON ORDER:(Per Hon’ble Ms.Justice G.Rohini)) The petitioner in these two writ petitions is engaged in the business ofconstruction of complexes. The petitioner was assessed under the IncomeTax Act for the Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, and aggrieved by the assessmentorders the petitioner filed appeals before the Commissioner, Income Tax(Appeals-I), Hyderabad. The said appeals were allowed in part. Thepetitioner preferred further appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Hyderabad (for short “Appellate Tribunal) contesting the orders of therespondent to the extent they were held against him. Pending the saidappeals the petitioner sought stay of collection of the demand. By commonorder dated 20.12.2012 the Appellate Tribunalgranted stay of recovery of thetax due, subject to the condition of payment of 25% of the outstandingamounts in two equal instalments payable on or before 15.01.2013 and15.02.2013. The said order is assailed in these two writ petitions, W.P. No.1922 of 2013 being with regard to the Assessment Year 2006-07 andW.P. No.1923 of 2013 being with regard to the Assessment Year 2007-08. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and havingperused the material available on record including the counter affidavits filedon behalf of the respondents, we do not find any justifiable reason to interferewith the impugned orders. As we could see, the Appellate Tribunal had recorded a specificfinding that the assessee could not make out a case regarding the financialhardship and no report was filed regarding latest financial position to showthat the assessee is not having financial liquidity. Thus, it is clear that theimpugned conditional order of stay came to be passed on application of mindto the facts and circumstances of the case. Such an order passed in properexercise of the discretion conferred under law, cannot be held to be illegal orerroneous on any ground whatsoever. It is also brought to our notice that the main appeals are now listedbefore the Appellate Tribunal for hearing and they stand posted to08.08.2013. Hence, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with theimpugned orders. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed, leaving it open to theAppellate Tribunal to proceed with the hearing of the appeals and passappropriate orders in accordance with law. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writpetitions shall stand closed. ______________ G. ROHINI, J __________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM,J