Madras High Court
Mrs.Zita Vijay vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 30 March, 2012
Author: M.Jaichandren
Bench: M.Jaichandren
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.3.2012
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
Writ Petition No.8535 of 2012
Mrs.Zita Vijay .. Petitioner
vs.
1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IX
The Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax
Aayakar Bhavan, 121, Uthamar Gandhi Salai
Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Business Range-VII
Room No.211, 2nd Floor
New Block, Aayakar Bhavan
121, Uthamar Gandhi Salai
Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034 .. Respondents
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in order dated 9.3.2012, on the file of the second respondent and forbear the second respondent from taking any coercive steps for the recovery of tax from the petitioner in pursuance of the notice of demand issued under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the petitioner in PAN No.AADPV2681H dated 30.12.2011, on the file of the second respondent, pending disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the first respondent in Appeal No.346/11-12.
For petitioner : Mr.A.Thiagarajan
senior advocate for
Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar
For respondents : Mr.J.Narayanasamy
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides.
2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the second respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 9.3.2012, dismissing the stay petition filed by the petitioner, dated 20.2.2012, along with the Appeal No.346/2011-12, pending on the file of the first respondent. The reasons stated in the impugned order, dated 9.3.2012, are not acceptable, as none of the grounds raised by the petitioner, in the stay petition, had been dealt with in the impugned order, dated 9.3.2012. Therefore, the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 9.3.2012, is liable to be set aside and the first respondent is to be directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner, in Appeal No.346/2011-12, without insisting on any pre-deposit being made by the petitioner.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had submitted that the petitioner is liable to pay 50% of the amount, demanded as tax, payable by the petitioner, for an order of stay to be granted, pending disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner, in Appeal No.346/2011-12.
4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court finds it fit to direct the first respondent to hear the appeal filed by the petitioner, in Appeal No.346/2011-12, and to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, on the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-, with the second respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, pursuant to the impugned demand made by the second respondent, by way of the notice of demand, dated 30.12.2011, under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 are closed.
lan