CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2014) 09 MAD CK 0326

N.A. Seethalakshmi vs The Government of India Income Tax Department

Madras High Court · Decided on 25 September 2014

HON’BLE JUDGES
V. Ramasubramanian, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 26498 of 2014 and M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2014

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 332 words

V. Ramasubramanian, J.—The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging the conditional order passed by the Appellate Authority for the grant of stay and consequently to forbear the respondents from in anyway recovering the disputed amount and any other amount during the pendency of the appeal before the fifth respondent.

2.

Heard Mrs. Selvi George, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. T. Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department takes notice for the respondents.

3.

As against the order of assessment, the petitioner filed Statutory Appeal. Pending appeal, the petitioner sought interim stay of enforcement of the demand. By the impugned order, the appellate authority directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10.50 lakhs in six equal instalments of Rs.1,75,000/- each starting from October 2014 and staying the recovery of the balance amount till the disposal of the appeal. Complaining that being an individual, she is unable to pay the said amount, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.

4.

The matter arises out of determination of capital gains on the sale of a property jointly owned by the petitioner along with her family members. The Officer refused to accept the value given by the petitioner, but went on the basis of a fair market value. Therefore, the case on hand cannot be treated like any other case, as the petitioner is an individual assessee and especially a lady.

5.

In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed modifying the impugned order to the following effect:

"Instead of making payment of Rs.10.50 lakhs, the petitioner shall pay Rs.3,00,000/- [Rupees Three lakhs only] within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Once this payment is made, there will be a interim stay pending disposal of the appeal. The fate of the stay will depend upon the final decision taken in the appeal."

No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.