Wp/24614/2009 Of Sri. Meesala Chandraiah v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-V

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 24614 of 2009 Dated: 13-11-2009 Between: Meesala Chandraiah …Petitioner and The Commissioner of Income Tax-V,A.C.Guards, Hyderabad and another …Respondents Oral order: (Per GR, J) The petitioner assails the order dated 21-10-2009 of the 1[st]respondent rejecting his plea for stay of payment of the income-tax dues inrespect of the assessment year 2005-06. The petitioner states to havepaid Rs.1 lakh each for the months of August, September and October,and Rs.1 lakh for the month of November out of the amount of Rs.4 lakhspayable for November, under the earlier order dated 15-7-2009 grantinginstalments. The petitioner is an assessee under the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (forshort ‘the Act’) on the rolls of the Income-Tax Officer, Wards 11 (2). Inrespect of the assessment year 2005-06, the returns of the petitioner wereprocessed under Section 143 (1) of the Act. The 2[nd] respondent took upscrutiny, completed the assessment under Section 144 of the Act anddetermined the balance tax liability at Rs.4,18,376-00. The petitionerpreferred an appeal thereagainst under Section 246A of the Act before theCommissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals). In respect of the assessment year 2006-07 an order of assessmentdated 30-12-2008 was passed determining the balance tax liability of thepetitioner at Rs.19,26,404-00. Thereagainst the petitioner did not file anyappeal, but preferred a revision to the 1[st] respondent under Section 264 ofthe Act, on 10-7-2009. He applied to the 1[st] respondent for stay ofpayment of the tax due. The 2[nd] respondent by the order dated 15-7-2009conveyed acceptance of the request for stay subject to payment of the tax dues in instalments; at Rs.1 lakh for the months of August, September andOctober and at the rate of Rs. 4 lakhs per month from November, 2009 toMarch, 2010. The petitioner, claiming financial stringency, againpetitioned the 1[st] respondent to expeditiously dispose of the revision filedon 10-7-2009 under Section 264 of the Act and in the meanwhile grant himstay of payment of the instalments. This application was rejected by the1[st] respondent by the impugned order and thereby the writ petition. We find no judicially reviewable infirmity in the order impugned.However in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the pleaof the petitioner as to the financial distress, we consider it appropriate todirect the 1[st] respondent to expeditiously consider and dispose of therevision preferred by the petitioner under Section 264 of the Act, in anyevent within a period of (60) days from today. The writ petition is disposed of as above, after hearing the learnedcounsel for the petitioner and Sri S.R.Ashok, learned standing counsel forIncome Tax. No costs. _____________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 13[th] November, 2009GRR ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J