Wp/566/2018 Of Pradeep Takhatmal Babel v. Income Tax Officer -- 24(3)(3) And Anr

Rane * 1/3 * WP-566-2018 (SR.24) Friday, 6.7.2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 566 OF 2018 Pradeep Takhatmal Babel….PetitionerV/s.Income-Tax Officer-24(3)(3)and anr.….Respondents * * * * * Mr. Vijay Kantharia i/by. Mr. Jitendra Singh, Advocate forthe petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM :- M.S. SANKLECHA, &SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.DATE :-6TH JULY, 2018. P.C. :- 1.This petition challenges the order dated 10thApril, 2017 and 24th October, 2017 rejecting thepetitioner's application for stay under Section 220(6) ofthe Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the AssessingOfficer (respondent no.1) and Principal Commissioner ofIncome-Tax respectively. The impugned orders directedthe respondent to deposit 100% of the disputed tax as Rane * 2/3 * WP-566-2018 (SR.24)Friday, 6.7.2018 assessed by the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year2012-13 in respect of the pending Appeals before theCommissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), (CIT(A)). Thepetitioners also pray that their appeal filed by the CIT(A)on 14th January, 2017 be disposed of expeditiously andtill such time as the Appeal is disposed of, the recoveryconsequent to the impugned orders be stayed. 2.The petitioners state that in terms of theCentral Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Circular dated 29[th]November, 2016 after filing of the Appeal, they havedeposited 20% the tax dues demanded consequent to theassessment order. 3.Mr. Suresh Kumar, Learned Counsel appearingfor the Revenue, on instructions from respondent no.3-theCIT(A) states that the petitioner would be heard inrespect of its Appeal in respect of Assessment Year 2013-14 filed on 14th January, 2017 on 10th July, 2018 at 3.00p.m. Further, he has been instructed that the Appeal filed Rane * 3/3 * would be disposed of within a period of three months from today. 4.We note the fact that, respondent no.3-CIT (A)is taking up the Appeal for consideration and would finallydispose it within a period of three months from today. Wealso note the fact that, the petitioner has alreadydeposited 20% of the tax dues in terms of the CBDTCircular. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, itwould be appropriate that in the facts of this case, theRevenue does not adopt coercive proceedings consequentto the impugned orders dated 10th April, 2017 and 24thOctober, 2017 till the disposal of their Appeal filed on 14thJanuary, 2017 by the CIT(A) and for a period of 2 weeksthereafter. 5.The petition is disposed of in above terms. No orderas to costs.as to costs. (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J)