Wp/6912/2011 Of Shri Uppu Karunasesh v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 22.03.2011CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.6912 of 2011andM.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011Shri Uppu Karunasesh,No.22, Shanthi Main Road,Rajaram Mehtha Nagar,Chennai – 600 029... Petitioner.Versus1.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – VI 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034.2.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Media Circle – I, Chennai – 600 034.3.District Valuation Officer, Valuation Cell, Income Tax Department, Chennai – 600 006... Respondents.Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia seeking for a writ of Mandamus, forbearing the secondrespondent or anyone under or through him from attempting to collectthe demand pursuant to the Notice of Demand dated 15.12.2010 for theAssessment year 2008-2009 by the second respondent till the disposalof the appeal in I.T.A.No.561 of 2010-11 pending before the firstrespondent. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned counsels appearing for the respondents.https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the petitioner is that the assessing authority had passedthe assessment order, dated 15.12.2010, without giving anopportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He had also submittedthat no proper reasons had been given by the assessing authority,before the assessment order had been passed. Therefore, thepetitioner had preferred an appeal, challenging the said assessmentorder before the first respondent, in I.T.A.No.561 of 2010-2011.The petitioner had also filed a stay petition before the firstrespondent, along with the said appeal. However, the firstrespondent had passed a conditional order of stay, on 01.03.2011,under Section 220, Clause 6 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, asking thepetitioner to pay Rs.13,46,286/-, which is 50% of the amount of taxand interest demanded from the petitioner, on or before 15.03.2011.In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed the present writpetition before this Court, under Section 226 of the Constitution ofIndia. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondentshad submitted that an assessment order had been passed against thepetitioner under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax, 1961, determiningthe total income of the petitioner as Rs.1,94,75,590/-, and raisinga demand of Rs.26,92,572/-, payable by the petitioner. He had alsosubmitted that sufficient opportunity had been given to thepetitioner before the assessment order had been passed. 4. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed insupport of the petition and in view of the submissions made by thelearned counsels appearing on either side, this Court finds itappropriate to direct the first respondent to dispose of the appeal,in I.T.A.No.561 of 2010-2011, preferred by the petitioner,challenging the notice of demand, dated 15.12.2010, on merits and inaccordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date ofa receipt of a copy of this order, without insisting on the paymentof 50% of the demand by the petitioner, as per the demand made bythe assessing authority, the second respondent herein, by its order,dated 15.12.2010. The petitioner shall co-operate, fully, in theproceedings before the first respondent, appellate authority. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- /true copy/ cse Sub Asst.Registrar. To 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – VI 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034. 2.the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Media Circle – I, Chennai – 600 034. 3.The District Valuation Officer, Valuation Cell, Income Tax Department, Chennai – 600 006. 1 cc to mr. George Cheriyan, Advocate, Sr. 20318 1 cc to Mr.J. Narayanasamy, Advocate, Sr. 20325 Writ Petition No.6912 of 2011andM.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 PKB (CO)kk 24/3