CPL Jewellers Private Limited vs The Commissioner of Income Tax

V. Ramasubramanian, J.—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.

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

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.

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. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others, , 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.

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.