Wp/31421/2022 Of Dr. Samit Sekhar v. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central)

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUSTTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWOPRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDAWRIT PETITION NO: 31421 OF 2022 Between: Dr. Samit Sekhar, S/o Naresh Kumar Sekhar, Occ. Medical Doctor, Plot No. 269,Road No.78, Jubilee Hills, HyderabadRoad No.78, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Pr. Commissioner of lncome Tax (Central), AayakarBhavan,Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Telangana-500004.Bhavan,Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Telangana-500004. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), AayakarBhawan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Telangana-500004.Bhawan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Telangana-500004. ,..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature ofWrit of Mandamus by declaring the order passed by the 1't respondent videDocument ldentification Number (DlN)- ITBA/ RCV/ F/ 171 2022-231 1043984499(1), dl. 21.O1 .2022 as bad in law and against CBDT guidelines and instructions; lA NO: I OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ]the High Court may be [pleased ]to staythe recovery proceedings till the disposal of first appeal filed before first appellateauthority, and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fitand proper in the interests of Substantial Justice as otherwise the Petitionerwould be put to irreparable loss and in.iury. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRl. DUNDU SASHANK MANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: B NARASIMHA SARMA The Court made the following: ORDER THE IC)N'BLE THE CTIII'F JUSTICE UJJA], B fIIJYT.NAND TH ) ]ION'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALT I I A YDT\ U'RIT PETITION No.3142I of 2Ci2 ORDER: (Pe tll. Horl'ble the Chief Justlcc Ltual Dltrq(nl Hea-r I Mr. Dundu Sashank MzLnre r ran, learnedcounsel fr r the petitioner and Mr. B.Nara s inrh;r Sarma,learned cc rnsel for the respondents. 2. By il ng this petition under Arti':le 221; of theConstiiut: rrL of lndia, petitioner has asstLi,r cl the legalit1,and valic tlr of the order dated 2l.07.'.lO'.1)' passed b1'responder t No.1 lor the assessmen! year 201B 19.3. Peti ic,ner before us is a medical prac:ir ioner and isan asses e,l under the Income Tax Act., I !t(,1 (briefll', theAct' here n after) having the status.of in<iiv,dual". For theassessm( n, year 2018-19, respondent No.2 as theassessin, officer passed assessment r;rder dated21 .O4.2C 2 under Section la3(3) of the Act. Bv the saidorder, in :ome of the petitioner for the :rfore s a.d e,ssessmentyear har been assessed at Rs.4,64,55,817.()0. Following such assessment order. demand notice under Section 156of the Act has been issued to the petitioner.4. It is stated that against the assessment order dated21.O4.2021 petitioner has prelerred an appeal belore thefirst appellate authority i.e., Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) on 22.O5.2021 . Since the petitioner was facingdemand, he preferred a petition for stay dated 1 I .O7 .2022before respondent No.l during the pendency of the appeal.Byacryptic orcler dated 21.O7.2022, respondent No.1disposed of the application dated 11.O7.2022 by framing aschedule of pa5rm6p1 clarilying that subject to suchpayment, the balance amount would be stayed till disposalof the appeal or till 3l .03 .2023, whichever is earlier. 5. On going through the impugned order dated21 .O7.2022, we find that the same does not disclose anyapplication of mind on the part of respondent No. 1. Sameappears to have been passed mechanically. Whileexercising powers under Section 220(6\ of the Act, PrincipalCommissioner exercises quasi judicial powers and is not \ 5. On going through the impugned order dated21 .O7.2022, we find that the same does not disclose anyapplication of mind on the part of respondent No. 1. Sameappears to have been passed mechanically. Whileexercising powers under Section 220(6\ of the Act, PrincipalCommissioner exercises quasi judicial powers and is not \ bourrd by tre guidelines issued b-r, the ot tLL:-al l]oard ofDirect Teu :sr (CBDT). The order must be a r:,rsoncrl onc6. Tha h,eing the position, we set asidc ,lre orclcr dated21 .07 .2Oi 2 and re mand the matter bac < -o re spondentNo. 1 for [r ]rl:ing a fresh decision on thr: app lrcation of thepetitioner f,rr stay dated 1 l.O7 .2022. Flt s prrnclent No.1shall give due opportunity ol hearing to tlrt' pr:titioner andthereafter p ass appropriate order in acco rL Lr^ ce rvith law'.The a,bov' t:xercise shall be carried out rrirl irr a penod olfour weel s lrom the date of receipt of a cop. [,rf ]this order.Till such iree, the demand raised follou inl3 t rt assessmentorder dat d 21 .O4.2021 shall be kept in at-.eyance 7 . Thir c isposes of the $,rit petition Mis ellaneous applications penclin 3 il' any, shall stand clo ,el. However, there shall be no r,rder as to costs Sd/. K. AMMAJIAS SI:STINT RGISTRAR//TRUE COPY/i'-+t1-."''SECTIO\ OFFICERTo,'1 . The Pr. ( )rimissioner of lncome Tax (Central), Aav€ k lrBhavan,I as heerbagh, Hyderabad, Telangana-500t,0 42. The Assi tant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central 3 rcle -.1(3), AayakarBhawan, 3esheerbagh, Hyderabad, Telangana-socOl I3. One CC I llRl. DUNDU SASHANK MANMOHAN rv v:cate [OpUC]4. One CC I llRl. B NARASIMHA SARMA Advocate [()t,UC]5. Two CD )ociestt,-*'-- HIGH COU]:1. UBJ&SNJ DATED:03 t )1112022 -1 ,- -r [{,](, ORDERWP.No.314 21 of 2022 WRIT PEI TION IS DISPOSED WITHC)IJT COST'S z--))1 ,t [t'] I