Wp/26538/2006 Of Pokuri Mallikarjuna Rao v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUREANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE J.CHELAMESWARand THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.APPA RAO WRIT PETITION NO :26538 of 2006 Dated: 22ndDecember 2006. Between:Pokuri Mallikarjuna Rao, s/o Sri Ramulu,Prop. Sri Rama Financial Services, Southern Street,Near Clock Tower, Eluru, West Godavari District. AND ..... PETITIONER The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I,Eluru, West Godavari District and others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J.CHELAMESWAR AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO W.P.NO.26538 OF 2006 ORAL ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice J.Chelameswar) This writ petition is filed with the prayer as follows: “ For the reasons stated in theaccompanying affidavit, it is prayed thatthe Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue aWrit, Order or Direction one in the natureof Mandamus declaring the order of the1[st]respondent in GIRNo.AENPP0679P/2002-03 & 2003-04,dated 09-11-2006 as illegal, bad andviolative of Art.14 of the Constitution ofIndia and set aside the same directing the 1[st] respondent not to take any coercivesteps for the recovery of the petitioner’spenalty dues for the assessment year2003-04 pending disposal of his appealbefore the 3[rd] respondent and pass such other orderor orders as it deems fit and proper in thecircumstances of the case.” The petitioner is an assessee on the rolls of the 1[st] respondent under the Income Tax Act 1961 (for short‘the Act’). For the assessment year 2003-04, thepetitioner’s liability for tax was determined by an orderdated 30-09-2004, under Section 143(3) of the Act. Asthe Assessing Authority was of the opinion that there wasviolation of Section 269SS of the Act, referred the matterto the 2[nd] respondent for initiation of penalty proceedingsunder Section 271D of the Act. Eventually, the 2[nd] respondent passed an order dated 25-09-2006imposing penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the petitionercarried the matter in appeal before the 3[rd] respondentand the same is said to be still pending. In view of the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner made anapplication to the 1[st] respondent under Section 220(6) of the Act. The saidapplication was rejected by a letter dated 09-11-2006,without assigning any reason whatsoever. Hence, thepresent writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner andthe learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that thematter can be disposed of at this stage directing therespondents not to take any coercive steps for recovery ofthe disputed penalty, on condition of the petitionerdepositing 25% of the disputed penalty within a period ofsix weeks from today. The amount already paid, if any,towards the penalty, shall be given credit to whilecomputing the abovementioned 25%. Accordingly, with the above direction, the writpetition is disposed of at the stage of admission. ---------------------- J.Chelameswar, J 22[nd] December 2006mrk ------------------ D.Appa Rao, J