Wp(Md)/1099/2020 Of Suresh Anuradha v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals-2)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Suresh Anuradha... Petitioner 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-2), Income Tax Buildings, V.P.Rathinasamy Road, Bibikulam, Madurai. 2.The Income Tax Officer, (Non Corporate Ward-1(1)), Income Tax Buildings, V.P.Rathinasamy Road, Bibikulam, Madurai. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, tocall for the records under DIN & Letter No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2019-20/1023768103(1) on the file of the second respondent, dated10.01.2020, mandating the petitioner to pay 20% of the disputeddemand of Income Tax in respect of assessment year 2017-18 inrespect to the PAN Number and to quash the same asillegal, void and incompetent and to direct the first respondent todispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 09.01.2020 underSection 246A of Income Tax Act 1961 challenging the order passed bythe second respondent under Section 143(3) of the Act by forbearingthe respondents from insisting the petitioner to remit 20% of thedisputed demand of Income Tax in respect of assessment year 2017-18. O R D E R This Writ Petition is filed for issuing a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order passed by thesecond respondent vide DIN & Letter No.ITBA /COM /F /17 /2019-20 /https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1023768103(1), dated 10.01.2020, mandating the petitioner to pay 20%of the disputed demand of Income Tax in respect of assessment year2017-18 in respect to the PAN Number and to direct thefirst respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on09.01.2020 under Section 246A of Income Tax Act 1961 challenging theorder passed by the second respondent under Section 246A of IncomeTax Act 1961 challenging the order passed by the second respondentunder Section 143(3) of the Act by forbearing the respondents frominsisting the petitioner to remit 20% of the disputed demand ofIncome Tax in respect of assessment year 2017-18. 2.By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken upfor final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 3.By the impugned proceedings, the second respondent hasdemanded the petitioner to pay a sum equivalent to 20% of levied taxon or before 17.01.2020 for entertaining the appeal and staypetition under Section 220(6) of Income Tax Act 1961. Earlier, anassessment order was passed on 11.12.2009 directing the petitionerto pay a sum of Rs.21,58,888/-. Challenging the same, thepetitioner has preferred an appeal along with the petition for stayunder Section 226(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961. For the purpose ofentertaining the stay petition, the respondents required thepetitioner to pay 20% of the disputed demanded amount on or before17.01.2020. The demand was on the basis of an Office Memorandum,dated 31.01.2017. 4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted thatthere is no statutory obligation for the petitioner to remit 20% ofthe tax demanded for filing an appeal. Since such condition hasbeen put unmindful of the civil consequences, the learned Counselwould submit that the requirement of 20% of levied tax amountwithout assigning any reason is illegal. However, without goinginto the merits of the case, the learned Counsel for the petitionerstates that the petitioner may be permitted to deposit 10% of thedemand instead of 20%, as directed in the impugned order. Thelearned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has noserious objection for this course. 4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted thatthere is no statutory obligation for the petitioner to remit 20% ofthe tax demanded for filing an appeal. Since such condition hasbeen put unmindful of the civil consequences, the learned Counselwould submit that the requirement of 20% of levied tax amountwithout assigning any reason is illegal. However, without goinginto the merits of the case, the learned Counsel for the petitionerstates that the petitioner may be permitted to deposit 10% of thedemand instead of 20%, as directed in the impugned order. Thelearned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has noserious objection for this course. 5.Hence, this Writ Petition is partly allowed and theimpugned order, dated 10.01.2020 directing the petitioner to pay 20%of the disputed demanded amount to respondents in respect of theassessment year 2017-18 is set aside. The petitioner is directed toremit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- within a period of 15 days from thedate of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being madeby the petitioner within the time stipulated, the order challengedhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/before the appellate authority stands stayed till the disposal of the appeal. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetitions are closed. // True Copy // Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) cmr +1 CC to M/s.B.SARAVANAN, Advocate ( SR-2286[F] dated 22/01/2020 )+1 CC to M/s.S.SRIMATHY, Advocate ( SR-2465[F] dated 22/01/2020 ) JMN(06.02.2020) 3P : 3C W.P.(MD)No.1099 of 202022.01.2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/