Wpms/440/2019 Of M/S Shanti Refrigeration Industries v. Commissioner Of Income Tax Haldwani

WPMS No. 440 of 2019 Hon’ble Lok Pal Singh, J. Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate and Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate for the respondents. Heard. Present writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:- (i) issue writ, rule or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith decide the appeal of the petitioner and also to pass appropriate orders considering the urgency of the petitioner on their application for interim relief against the proposed demand and recovery of the alleged amount since the respondents are inert to consider the interim relief application of the petitioner and also ignored this fact that the delay in disposal of the matter pending before him specifically the interim relief application will cause grave prejudice to the petitioner and also causing multiplicity of litigation keeping in view the facts highlighted in the body of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that statutory appeal under section 246 of the Income Tax Act has been preferred by the petitioner which is pending consideration before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Haldwani. He would further submit that taking advantage of the situation, the Assessing Officer has raised demand of Rs. 88,09,557/- He would further submit that early disposal of the appeal is fundamental right of the petitioner and C.I.T. (A) Haldwani is not taking decision on the appeal of the petitioner and prayed that till the disposal of the appeal, demand raised by the Assessing Officer may be stayed. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that second respondent shall decide the stay application of the petitioner as per office memorandum dated 29.02.2016 as amended on 31.07.2017, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is being disposed of with the direction to the second respondent to decide the stay application of the petitioner expeditiously, in accordance with law, as per the provisions contained in office memorandum dated 29.02.2016 as amended on 31.07.2017. Respondents are further directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner expeditiously. Unnecessary adjournment shall be avoided. In the facts and circumstances, parties shall bear their own cost. Let a certified copy of the order be issued to the counsel for the petitioner today itself, as per rules. Parul (Lok Pal Singh, J.) 21.02.2019