Shri Uppu Karunasesh vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and District Valuation Officer, Valuation Cell, Income Tax Department

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Counsels appearing for the Respondents.

The main contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is that the assessing authority had passed the assessment order,

dated 15.12.2010, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. He had also submitted that no proper reasons had been given by the

assessing authority, before the assessment order had been passed. Therefore, the Petitioner had preferred an appeal, challenging the said

assessment order before the first Respondent, in I.T.A. No. 561 of 2010-2011. The Petitioner had also filed a stay petition before the first

Respondent, along with the said appeal. However, the first Respondent had passed a conditional order of stay, on 01.03.2011, u/s 220, Clause 6

of the Income Tax Act, 1961, asking the Petitioner to pay Rs. 13,46,286/-, which is 50% of the amount of tax and interest demanded from the

Petitioner, on or before 15.03.2011. In such circumstances, the Petitioner had filed the present writ petition before this Court, u/s 226 of the

Constitution of India.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents had submitted that an assessment order had been passed against the Petitioner u/s

143(3) of the Income Tax, 1961, determining the total income of the Petitioner as Rs. 1,94,75,590/-, and raising a demand of Rs. 26,92,572/-,

payable by the Petitioner. He had also submitted that sufficient opportunity had been given to the Petitioner before the assessment order had been

passed.

In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and in view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels

appearing on either side, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the first Respondent to dispose of the appeal, in I.T.A. No. 561 of 2010-2011,

preferred by the Petitioner, challenging the notice of demand, dated 15.12.2010, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight

weeks from the date of a receipt of a copy of this order, without insisting on the payment of 50% of the demand by the Petitioner, as per the

demand made by the assessing authority, the second Respondent herein, by its order, dated 15.12.2010. The Petitioner shall co-operate, fully, in

the proceedings before the first Respondent, appellate authority.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.