Dr. T.K. Shanmugasundaram vs Commissioner of Income Tax and Others

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.—The writ petition is filed seeking for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records and proceedings of the third respondent culminating in the order PAN/G.I.R. No. AAVPA9986J dated March 22, 2007, and quash the same and direct the second respondent to hear and dispose of the appeal without insisting on the deposit of the amounts set out in the impugned order or any other amounts.

For the assessment year 2004-05, an assessment order has been made against the petitioner. Aggrieved against the assessment order, it appears that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the second respondent-Commissioner (Appeals) on January 25, 2007, and it is stated to be pending. Even prior to that, on January 16, 2007, the petitioner made an application u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act before the Income Tax Officer, Ward No. XIV(4) Chennai - 34, not to treat the asses-see as a defaulter pursuant to the notice issued by the Income Tax Officer invoking the power u/s 274 read with Section 271 of the Income Tax Act. Without passing any order in that application, the Income Tax officer passed an order dated March 22, 2007, which is impugned in the writ petition.

The precise case of the petitioner is that without passing any order in the petitioner''s application dated January 16, 2007, particularly, when the appeal is pending before the second respondent-appellate authority, wherein the correctness of the assessment order is disputed, the attachment of the petitioner''s bank account by means of order dated March 22, 2007, cannot be legally sustained.

I heard the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner and also counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials on record.

This court is of the view that the petitioner can have certain relief as the impugned order was passed without passing any order in the application filed by the petitioner u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act. Hence, the writ petition can be disposed of by directing the third respondent to pass orders in the application dated January 16, 2007, and till the orders are passed in the said application, the impugned order dated March 22, 2007, has to be kept in abeyance.

Accordingly, the third respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in the application dated January 16, 2007, filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till the orders are passed in that application, the impugned order dated March 22, 2007, is directed to be kept in abeyance.

With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected M.P. No. 1 of 2007, is closed.