Wp/7136/2020 Of M/S.sahana Jewellery Exports Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH W.P. Nos.7136, 7155 & 7411 of 2020and WMP.Nos.8505, 8506, 13817, 8535, 8536, 13914, 8874, 8875 & 13782 of 2020 M/s.Sahana Jewellery Exports Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director D.R.Ragunath600, Raja Street, Coimbatore Coimbatore 641 001... Petitioner in WP.No.7136/2020 DAR Paradise Private Limited Rep. by its Director D.R.Ragunath 599 Raja Street,Coimbatore Coimbatore 641001... Petitioner in WP.No.7155/2020 Tara Jewellery Rep. by its Partner Paras K.Soni 61 West Bashyakarula Road, R.S.Puram,Coimbatore 641 002... Petitioner in WP.No.7411/2020 Income Tax Officer Corporate Ward 3, Coimbatore 63 Race Course Road Coimbatore 641 018. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 263 Race Course Road,Coimbatore 641018... 1[st] Respondent in WP.7155/2020 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Non Corporate Circle 2 63, Race Course Road Coimbatore 641 018. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1,63 Race Course Road, Coimbatore 641 018. ... 2[nd] Respondent in all WPs Prayer in WP.No.7136 of 2020: Writ Petition filed under Article226 of the Constitution of India praying Writ of Certiorari tocall for the records on the file of the First Respondentrelating to the application made by the Petitioner for stay of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ demand for the assessment year 2016-17 and quash the order ofthe First Respondent in PAN in DIN Letter No. ITBA /COM / F / 17 / 2019-20 / 1024361388(1) dated 28.01.2020 for theAssessment year 2016-17 along with the consequential order ofthe Second Respondent dated 09.03.2020 in C No. 117 / PCIT-1 /CBE / AAECS7045N / 2019-20 and direct the First Respondent tonot to treat the petitioner as an assessee in default pendingdisposal of the appeal file by the petitioner before theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Coimbatore. Prayer in WP.No.7155 of 2020: Writ Petition filed under Article226 of the Constitution of India praying to Writ of Certiorarito call for the records on the file of the 1st respondentrelating to the application made by the petitioner for theassessment year 2016 -17 and quash the order of the 1strespondent in PAN AAFCD 3066 P in DIN and Letter No.ITBA / COM /F/17/2019 -20/1024477226 (1) dated 30/01/2020 for the AssessmentYear 2017 -18 along with the consequential order of the SecondRespondentdated09.03.2020inCNo117/PCIT-1/CBE/AAFCD3066P/2019-20 and direct the 1st respondent not totreat the petitioner as an assessee in default pending disposalof the appeal filed by the petitioner before the commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) Coimbatore. Prayer in WP.No.7411 of 2020: Writ Petition filed under Article226 of the Constitution of India praying to Writ of Certiorarito call for the records on the file of the First Respondentrelating to the application made by the petitioner for stay ofdemand for the assessment year 2017-18 and quash the order ofthe First Respondent in PAN in DIN and Letter No.ITBA/ COM/ F/ 17/ 2019-20/ 1024859545 (1) dated 07.02.2020 forthe Assessment year 2017- 18 along with the consequential orderof the second Respondent dated 09.03.2020 in C.No. 117/ PCIT -1/CBE/ AAGFT2345B/ 2019-20 and direct the First Respondent not totreat the Petitioner as an assessee in default pending disposalof the appeal filed by the Petitioner before the commissioner ofIncome Tax (appeals) Coimbatore. (Prayers amended vide order dated 21.08.2020 in WMP Nos.13817.13914 and 13782 of 2020). COMMON ORDER For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support ofthe Miscellaneous Petitions filed seeking amendment of prayer inthe Writ Petitions and there being no objection to the same byMr.ANR.Jayapratap, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents,WMP Nos.13817, 1394 and 13782 of 2020 are ordered. (Prayers amended vide order dated 21.08.2020 in WMP Nos.13817.13914 and 13782 of 2020). COMMON ORDER For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support ofthe Miscellaneous Petitions filed seeking amendment of prayer inthe Writ Petitions and there being no objection to the same byMr.ANR.Jayapratap, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents,WMP Nos.13817, 1394 and 13782 of 2020 are ordered. 2. Heard Mr.N.V.Balaji, learned counsel for the petitionerand Mr.ANR.Jayaprathap, learned Standing Counsel for therespondents. By consent expressed by both learned counsel thesematters are taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioners challenge orders passed by the AssessingOfficer and by the Principal Commissioner of Income Taxrejecting applications for stay of demand arising from thedisputed orders of assessment passed under the provisions of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’). 4. A perusal of the impugned orders would show that theorders are non-speaking and merely call upon the petitioners toremit 20% of the disputed taxes without reference to the tri-fold aspects of prima facie case, financial stringency andbalance of convenience. In fact, I have in order dated13.07.2019 in W.P.No.3849 of 2019 considered a similar positionand have passed the following order: 7. The parameters to be taken into account inconsideringthe grant of stay of disputed demand arewell settled – theexistence of a prima facie case,financial stringency and thebalance of convenience.‘Financial stringency’ would include withinits ambitthe question of 'irreparable injury' and ‘unduehardship’as well. It is only upon an application ofthe three factors asaforesaid that the assessingofficer can exercise discretion for thegrant orrejection, wholly or in part, of a request for stayofdisputed demand. 8. In addition, periodic Instructions/Circularsin regard to themanner of adjudication of staypetitions are issued by the CentralBoard of DirectTaxes(CBDT)fortheguidanceoftheDepartmentalauthorities. The one oft-quoted by theassessee is OfficeMemorandum F.No.1/6/69/-ITCC,dated 21.08.1969 that states asfollows:'1. One of the points that cameup for considerationin the 8thMeetingoftheInformalConsultativeCommitteewasthat income-tax assessments wereoftenarbitrarily pitched at higherfigures and thatthe collection ofdisputed demand as a resultthereofwas also not stayed in spiteof the specific provisionin thematter in s. 220(6) of the IT Act,1961. 2. The then Deputy PrimeMinister had observed asunder :".........Wheretheincomedeterminedonassessmentwassubstantially higher than thereturned income,say twice the latteramount or more, the collectionof thetax in dispute should be held inabeyance tillthe decision on theappeal provided there were nolapseson the part of the assessees." 3. The Board desire that theabove observations maybe brought tothe notice of all the Income-taxOfficers working under you andthe powers of stayof recovery insuch cases up to the stage offirstappeal may be exercised by theInspectingAssistantCommissioner/Commissionerof Income-tax.9.Thereafter,InstructionNo.1914 was issued bythe CBDT on 21.03.1996 and states as follows: 1. Recovery of outstanding taxdemands[Instruction No. 1914 F. No.404/72/93 ITCC dated 2-12-1993 from CBDT] The Board has felt the needfora comprehensive instruction on thesubject of recovery of tax demand in order tostreamlinerecovery procedures. Thisinstructionisaccordinglybeingissued in supersession of allearlierinstructions on the subjectand reiterates theexisting Circularson the subject. 2. The Board is of the viewthat, as a matter ofprinciple, everydemand should be recovered assoon as it becomes due. Demand may be keptinabeyance for valid reasons only inaccordance withthe guidelines givenbelow : A. Responsibility:i.ItshallbetheresponsibilityoftheAssessingOfficer and the TRO tocollect every demand thathas beenraised, except the following: 1. Recovery of outstanding taxdemands[Instruction No. 1914 F. No.404/72/93 ITCC dated 2-12-1993 from CBDT] The Board has felt the needfora comprehensive instruction on thesubject of recovery of tax demand in order tostreamlinerecovery procedures. Thisinstructionisaccordinglybeingissued in supersession of allearlierinstructions on the subjectand reiterates theexisting Circularson the subject. 2. The Board is of the viewthat, as a matter ofprinciple, everydemand should be recovered assoon as it becomes due. Demand may be keptinabeyance for valid reasons only inaccordance withthe guidelines givenbelow : A. Responsibility:i.ItshallbetheresponsibilityoftheAssessingOfficer and the TRO tocollect every demand thathas beenraised, except the following: (a) Demandwhich has not fallen due;(b) Demand which hasbeen stayed by aCourtorITATorSettlementCommission;(c)Demand for which a properproposal for write-off has beensubmitted; (d) Demand stayed inaccordance withparas B & C below. ii. Where demand in respect of whicha recoverycertificate has beenissued or a statement has beendrawn,the primary responsibility for thecollectionof tax shall rest with theTRO. iii. It would be the responsibilityof the supervisoryauthorities toensurethattheAssessingOfficersand the TROs take all suchmeasures as arenecessary to collectthe demand. It must beunderstoodthat mere issue of a show causenoticewith no followup is not to beregarded as adequateeffort torecover taxes. B. Stay Petitions: i. Stay petitions filed with theAssessing Officersmust be disposedof within two weeks of the filingofpetition by the tax- payer. Theassessee must beintimated of thedecision without delay. ii. Where stay petitions are made tothe authoritieshigher than theAssessing Officer (DC/CIT/CC), itisthe responsibility of the higherauthoritiestodisposeofthepetitions without any delay, andinany event within two weeks of thereceipt of the petition. Such a decision should becommunicated tothe assessee and theAssessing Officer immediately.iii. The decision in the matter ofstay of demandshould normally betaken by Assessing Officer/TROandhis immediate superior. A highersuperiorauthority should interferewith the decision of theAO/TRO onlyin exceptional circumstances; e.g.,where the assessment order appearsto beunreasonably high-pitched orwhere genuinehardship is likely tobe caused to the assessee. Thehigherauthorities should discourage theassesse from filingreview petitionsbefore them as a matterof routine orin a frivolous manner to gain timeforwithholding payment of taxes.C. Guidelines for staying demand:i. A demand will be stayed only ifthere are validreasons for doing so.Mere filing an appeal againsttheassessment order will not be asufficientreasontostaytherecoveryofdemand.Afewillustrativesituations where staycould be granted are:It is clarified that in thesesituations also, stay maybe grantedonlyinrespectoftheamountattributable to such disputedpoints.Furtherwhereitissubsequently found that the assesseehas notco-operated in the earlydisposal of appeal or whereasubsequent pronouncement by a higherappellateauthority or court altersthe above situation, thestay ordermay be reviewed and modified.Theabove illustrations are, ofcourse, not exhaustive.ii. In granting stay, the AssessingOfficer mayimpose such conditions ashe may think fit. Thus hemay —a. require the assessee to offersuitablesecurity to safeguard theinterest of revenue; b.require theassessee to pay towards the disputedtaxes a reasonable amount inlump sum or ininstalments; c. require an undertaking fromtheassessee that he will co-operatein the earlydisposal of appealfailing which the stay order willbecancelled. disputedtaxes a reasonable amount inlump sum or ininstalments; c. require an undertaking fromtheassessee that he will co-operatein the earlydisposal of appealfailing which the stay order willbecancelled. d. reserve the right to reviewtheorder passed after expiry of areasonable period,say up to 6months, or if the assessee has notcooperatedin the early disposal ofappeal,orwhereasubsequentpronouncementbyahigherappellateauthority or court altersthe above situations; e. reserve a right to adjust refundsarising, if any,against the demand.iii. Payment by instalments may beliberally allowedso as to collectthe entire demand within areasonableperiod not exceeding 18 months.iv. Since the phrase “stay ofdemand” does not occurin section 220(6)oftheIncome-taxAct,theAssessing Officer should alwaysuse in any orderpassed under section220(6) [or under section220(3) orsection 220(7)], the expressionthatoccurs in the section viz., thathe agrees to treat theassessee asnot being default in respect oftheamount specified, subject to suchconditions as hedeems fit to impose.v. While considering an applicationunder section220(6), the AssessingOfficer should consider allrelevantfactors having a bearing on thedemandraised and communicate hisdecision in the form ofa speakingorder. D. Miscellaneous: i. Even where recovery of demand hasbeen stayed,the Assessing Officerwill continue to review thesituationto ensure that the conditionsimposed arefulfilled by the assesseefailing which the stay orderwouldneed to be withdrawn. ii. Where the assessee seeks stay ofdemand fromthe Tribunal, it shouldbe strongly opposed. If theassesseepresses his application, the CITshoulddirectthedepartmentalrepresentative to requestthat theappeal be posted within a month sothatTribunal’s order on the appealcan be known withintwo months.iii.Appeal effects will have to begivenwithin 2 weeks from the receiptof the appellateorder. Similarly,rectification application shouldbedecided within 2 weeks of thereceipt t hereof.Instances wherethere is undue delay in givingeffectto appellate orders, or indeciding rectificationapplications,should be dealt with very strictlybythe CCITs/CITs.3. The Board desires thatappropriate action istaken in thematter of recovery in accordancewiththeaboveprocedure.TheAssessing Officer or theTRO, as thecasemaybe,andhisimmediatesuperior officer shall beheldresponsibleforensuringcompliance with these instructions.4. This procedure would applymutatis mutandis todemands createdunder other Direct Taxesenactmentsalso.' 10. Instruction 1914 was partially modified byOfficeMemorandum dated 29.02.2016 taking intoaccount the fact thatAssessing Officers insisted onpayment of significant portions of thedisputeddemand prior to grant of stay resulting inextremehardship for tax payers. Thus, in order tostreamline the grant ofstay and standardize theprocedure, modified guidelines wereissued which areas follows: '....... (A) In a case where the outstandingdemand is disputedbefore CIT (A),the assessing officer shall grantstay ofdemand till disposal of firstappeal on payment of 15% of the disputed demand, unless the casefalls in the categorydiscussed inpars (B) hereunder. 10. Instruction 1914 was partially modified byOfficeMemorandum dated 29.02.2016 taking intoaccount the fact thatAssessing Officers insisted onpayment of significant portions of thedisputeddemand prior to grant of stay resulting inextremehardship for tax payers. Thus, in order tostreamline the grant ofstay and standardize theprocedure, modified guidelines wereissued which areas follows: '....... (A) In a case where the outstandingdemand is disputedbefore CIT (A),the assessing officer shall grantstay ofdemand till disposal of firstappeal on payment of 15% of the disputed demand, unless the casefalls in the categorydiscussed inpars (B) hereunder. (B) In a situation where,(a) the assessing officer is of theview that the nature ofadditionresulting in the disputed demand issuch thatpayment of a lump sumamount higher than 15% iswarranted (e.g. in a case whereaddition on the same issuehas beenconfirmed by appellate authoritiesin earlier yearsor the decision ofthe Supreme Court /or jurisdictionalHighCourt is in favour of Revenue oradditionisbasedoncredibleevidence collected in a search orsurvey operation,etc.) or,(b) the assessing officer is of theview that the nature ofadditionresulting in the disputed demand issuch thatpayment of a lump sumamount lower than 15% iswarranted(e.g. in a case where addition onthe same issuehas been deleted byappellate authorities in earlieryears orthe decision of the SupremeCourt or jurisdictional HighCourt isin favour of the assessee, etc.),the assessingofficer shall refer thematter to the administrative Pr.CIT/CIT, who after considering allrelevant facts shall decidethequantum/ proportion of demand to bepaid by theassessee as lump sumpayment for granting a stay ofthebalance demand.'11. Instruction 1914 was furthermodified by OfficeMemorandum bearingnumber F.No.404/72/93 – ITCC dated 31.07 2017 as follows:'OFFICE MEMORANDUM F. No. 404/72/93-ITCC dated31.07.2017 Subject: Partialmodification of Instruction No.1914 dated 21.3.1996 to provide forguidelines for stay ofdemand at the first appeal stage.Reference: Board’s O.M. of evennumber dated 29.2.2016Instruction No. 1914 dated 21.3.1996 containsguidelinesissued by the Boardregarding procedure to be followedforrecovery of outstanding demand,including procedure forgrant of stayof demand. Vide O.M. N0.404/72/93-ITCC dated29.2.2016 revisedguidelines wereissued in partial modification ofinstructionNo 1914, wherein, interalia, vide para 4(A) it had beenlaiddown that in a case where theoutstanding demand isdisputed beforeCIT(A), the Assessing Officer shallgrantstay of demand till disposal offirst appeal on payment of15% of thedisputed demand unless the casefalls in thecategory discussed inpara(B)thereunder.Similarreferences to the standardrate of 15% have also beenmade insucceeding paragraphs therein.2. The matter has been reviewed bythe Board in the lightof feedbackreceived from field authorities. Inview of theBoard’s efforts tocontain over pitched assessmentsthrough several measures resultinginfairerandmorereasonableassessment orders, the standard rateof 15% ofthe disputed demand isfound to be on the lower side.Accordingly. it has been decidedthat the standard rateprescribed inO.M. dated 29.2.2016 be revised to20% ofthe disputed demand, where thedemand is contested before CIT(A). Thus all referencesto 15% of the disputeddemand in theaforesaid O.M dated 29.2.2016 herebystandmodified to 20% of the disputeddemand. Other guidelinescontained inthe O.M. dated 29.2.2016 shallremainunchanged.Thesemodificationsmaybe immediately brought to thenotice ofall officers working in yourjurisdiction for proper compliance.'12. The Circulars and Instructions as extractedabove are in thenature of guidelines issued to before CIT(A). Thus all referencesto 15% of the disputeddemand in theaforesaid O.M dated 29.2.2016 herebystandmodified to 20% of the disputeddemand. Other guidelinescontained inthe O.M. dated 29.2.2016 shallremainunchanged.Thesemodificationsmaybe immediately brought to thenotice ofall officers working in yourjurisdiction for proper compliance.'12. The Circulars and Instructions as extractedabove are in thenature of guidelines issued to assist the assessing authorities in thematter ofgrant of stay and cannot substitute or override thebasictenets to be followed in the consideration anddisposal of staypetitions. The existence of a primafacie case for which someillustrations have beenprovided in the Circulars themselves, thefinancialstringency faced by an assessee and the balanceofconvenience in the matter constitute the‘trinity’, so to say, and areindispensable inconsideration of a stay petition by the authority.The Board has, while stating generally that theassessee shall becalled upon to remit 20% of thedisputed demand, granted amplediscretion to theauthority to either increase or decrease thequantumdemanded based on the three vital factors to betakeninto consideration.13. In the present case, the assessing officerhas merelyrejected the petition by way of a non-speaking order reading asfollows:'Kindly refer to the above. Thisis to inform you that merefiling ofappeal against the said order is not aground forstay of the demand. Henceyour request for stay of demandisrejected and you are requested to paythe demandimmediately. Notice u/s.221(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961isenclosed herewith.'14. The disposal of the request for stay by thepetitioner leavesmuch to be desired. I am of thecategoric view that the AssessingOfficer ought tohave taken note of the conditions precedent forthegrant of stay as well as the Circulars issued bythe CBDT andpassed a speaking order. Of course thepetition seeking stay filedby the petitioner isitself cryptic. However, as noted by theSupremeCourt in the case of Commissioner of Income taxvsMahindra Mills, ((2008) 296 ITR 85 (Mad)) in thecontext of grantof depreciation, the Circular of theCentral Board of Revenue (No.14 (SL- 35) of 1955dated April 11, 1955) requires the officers ofthedepartment ‘to assist a taxpayer in every reasonableway,particularly in the matter of claiming andsecuring reliefs. ....Although, therefore, theresponsibility for claiming refunds andreliefs restswith the assessees on whom it is imposed by law,officersshould draw their attention to any refundsor reliefs to which theyappear to be clearlyentitled but which they have omitted to claimforsomereasonorother......’.Thus, notwithstanding that the assesse may not havespecifically invoked the three parameters forthegrant of stay, it is incumbent upon the assessingofficer to examinethe existence of a prima faciecase as well as call upon theassessee to demonstratefinancial stringency, if any and arrive atthebalance of convenience in the matter. 15. I thus set aside impugned order dated25.01.2019. TheAssessing Officer is directed to passorders de novo on the stayapplication filed by thepetitioner in the light of the discussionasaforesaid, after hearing the petitioner, within aperiod of fourweeks from date of receipt of a copyof this Order. I have, for theaforesaid reason,consciously and deliberately refrained fromreferringto or making any observation on the merits oftheassessment. 5. In the present matters, a sample of the impugned orders(W.P.No.7136 of 2020) are extracted below to show the cursorymanner in which the stay applications have been disposed. ‘GOVERNMENT OF INDIAMINISTRY OF FINANCEINCOME TAX DEPARTMENTOFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICERCORP WARD 3, CBE 15. I thus set aside impugned order dated25.01.2019. TheAssessing Officer is directed to passorders de novo on the stayapplication filed by thepetitioner in the light of the discussionasaforesaid, after hearing the petitioner, within aperiod of fourweeks from date of receipt of a copyof this Order. I have, for theaforesaid reason,consciously and deliberately refrained fromreferringto or making any observation on the merits oftheassessment. 5. In the present matters, a sample of the impugned orders(W.P.No.7136 of 2020) are extracted below to show the cursorymanner in which the stay applications have been disposed. ‘GOVERNMENT OF INDIAMINISTRY OF FINANCEINCOME TAX DEPARTMENTOFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICERCORP WARD 3, CBE TOSAHANA JEWELLERY EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITEDSAHANA JEWELLERY EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,600, RAJA STREET,COIMBATORE 641 001, Tamil NaduIndia PAN:AssessmentDated:DIN & Letter No:Year:AAECS7045N28/01/2020ITBA/COM/F/17/202016-1719-20/1024361388(1) Sir/Madam/M/s. Subject: Payment of outstanding tax-PAN: -AY 2016-17- Regarding Ref: Your petition dated 27-01-2020 Your petition regarding stay of recovery of disputedtax and the case laws quoted by you are perused.However as per the Boards instruction no.1914, whichis modified by Para 2 of the OM dated 31/07/2017stay of disputed demand be granted if 20% of thesame is paid and stay requested. Hence your request for permanent stay of recovery ofdisputed tax till the disposal of first appeal bythe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Coimbatoreis hereby rejected. You are requested to pay 20% ofthe demand outstanding immediately and file a freshpetition for the stay balance demand to avoidcoercive action. SILUVAI ANTHONY JOSEPHINE MARYCORP WARD 3, CBE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1NO 63, RACE COURSE, COIMBATORE-641 018C.No.117/PCII-I/CBE/AAECS7045N/2019-20Dated: 09/03/2020 PROCEEDINGS OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONEROF INCOMETAX-1 COIMBATOREPresent: Shri G.R.Reddy, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1Coimbatore Sub: Stay of payment of tax – in the case of SahanaJewellery Exports Private Limited, 600 RajaStreet, Coimbatore – 641 001 – AY:2016-17 – PAN: – Reg.Ref: Assessee’s Petition dated 31/01/2020********** ORDER: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The aforesaid assessee has filed a petitiondated 31/01/2020 requesting to grant stay of demandwhich was raised by the Assessing Officer vide orderdated 30/12/1999 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income TaxAct 1961 for the assessment year 2016-17. 2.0The assessee’s stay petition, facts of thecase and the assessment records have been carefullyperused. Considering the facts of the case and inview of Instruction No.1914 issued by Central Boardof Direct Taxes (CBDT) dated 31/07/2017, theassessee is directed to remit 20% of the demandraised within 5 days from the date of receipt ofthis order. The Assessing Officer shall monitor thepayment of 20% of the disputed demand andthereafter, stay the balance 80% of the disputeddemand till disposal of appeal by the Commissionerof Income Tax (Appeals), Coimbatore. 6. Evidently, the matter needs more application of mind thanwhat is seen above. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugnedorders are set aside. Orders shall be passed afresh by the 2[nd]respondent after hearing the petitioners either virtually or byway of a physical hearing as may be mutually convenient to theparties within a period of six (6) weeks from date of uploadingof this order. Till such time, recovery proceedings are kept inabeyance. 7. These Writ Petitions are disposed as above. No costs.Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Assistant Registrar Sub Assistant Registrar SlTo 1.Income Tax Officer Corporate Ward 3, Coimbatore 63 Race Course Road Coimbatore 641 018. 2.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 263 Race Course Road,Coimbatore 641018. 6. Evidently, the matter needs more application of mind thanwhat is seen above. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugnedorders are set aside. Orders shall be passed afresh by the 2[nd]respondent after hearing the petitioners either virtually or byway of a physical hearing as may be mutually convenient to theparties within a period of six (6) weeks from date of uploadingof this order. Till such time, recovery proceedings are kept inabeyance. 7. These Writ Petitions are disposed as above. No costs.Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Assistant Registrar Sub Assistant Registrar SlTo 1.Income Tax Officer Corporate Ward 3, Coimbatore 63 Race Course Road Coimbatore 641 018. 2.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 263 Race Course Road,Coimbatore 641018. 3.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Non Corporate Circle 2 63, Race Course Road Coimbatore 641 018. 4.Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1,63 Race Course Road, Coimbatore 641 018. +3cc to M/s.Thanjai P.N.Chezhian, Advocate, sr no.27362 to 27364 W.P. Nos.7136, 7155 & 7411 of 2020 and WMP.Nos.8505, 8506, 13817, 8535, 8536, 13914, 8874, 8875 & 13782 of 2020RJI(CO) RMP(03/09/2020)