Cpl Jewellers Private Limited vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax

[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Madras High Court

Cpl Jewellers Private Limited vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax - Appeals ... on 25 September, 2014

Bench: V.Ramasubramanian

       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS  

DATED:  25.09.2014

CORAM  

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

Writ Petition No.26430 of 2014
and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014

CPL Jewellers Private Limited
rep.by its Director, C.L.Raghunathan
118, Catchery Street
Tirupathur 635 601. 			 			.. Petitioner
vs.

1. The Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeals (III)
    Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax
    Aayakar Bhavan,
    Mahatma Gandhi Road
    Nungambakkam
    Chennai 600 034.

2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
    Circle I, Vellore.					.. 	Respondents

	Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the second respondent dated 14.08.2014 in PAN-AAECC2056/ACIT/VLR and to quash the same.
-----
		For Petitioner   	:   Mr.N.Muralikumaran
					     for M/s.Mc Gan Law Firm
		For Respondents 	:   Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda
					    Standing Counsel for 
					    Income Tax Department
-----

O R D E R

The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging the dismissal of the petition filed under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the second respondent.

2. Heard Mr.N.Muralikumaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

3. The demand made as per the order of assessment is Rs.4,27,02,440/-. The petitioner was asked to pay 50% of the said demand immediately and the balance 50% on or before 16th September 2014. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent and pending the same, the petitioner also filed a petition under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was dismissed by the second respondent vide the impugned order dated 14.08.2014.

4. Apart from the reliance placed upon the Instruction No.96 and Instruction No.1914/93 dated 02.12.1993 and the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [(2010) 324 ITR 247 (Delhi)], the learned counsel for the petitioner also states that the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- out of the demand made by the Department.

5. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside modifying the imposition of the condition to the effect that the petitioner shall pay 20% of the impugned demand within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner makes the payment, they shall have the benefit of stay of recovery till the disposal of the appeal. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Index		: Yes/No							25.09.2014
Internet	: Yes/No
vj2

To

1. The Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeals (III)
    Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax
    Aayakar Bhavan,
    Mahatma Gandhi Road
    Nungambakkam
    Chennai 600 034.

2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
    Circle I, Vellore




V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J.
vj2       














W.P.No.26430 of 2014















25.09.2014.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court