CPL Jewellers Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Income-tax-Appeals (III), Office of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai/ The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-I, Vellore
[Citation -2014-LL-0925-54]

Citation 2014-LL-0925-54
Appellant Name CPL Jewellers Private Limited
Respondent Name The Commissioner of Income-tax-Appeals (III), Office of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai/ The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-I, Vellore
Court HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 25/09/2014
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags stay of recovery
Bot Summary: The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle I, Vellore... Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the second respondent dated 14.08.2014 in PAN- AAECC2056/ACIT/VLR and to quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Muralikumaran for M/s.Mc Gan Law Firm For Respondents : Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department --- 2 ORDER 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. 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. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 3 324 ITR 247, 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. 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. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.


IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.09.2014 CORAM HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN Writ Petition No.26430 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 CPL Jewellers Private Limited rep.by its Director, C.L.Raghunathan 118, Catchery Street Tirupathur 635 601. .. Petitioner vs. 1. Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeals (III) Office of Commissioner of Income Tax Aayakar Bhavan, Mahatma Gandhi Road Nungambakkam Chennai 600 034. 2. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle I, Vellore. .. Respondents Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for writ of Certiorari to call for records pertaining to impugned order of second respondent dated 14.08.2014 in PAN- AAECC2056/ACIT/VLR and to quash same. ----- For Petitioner : Mr.N.Muralikumaran for M/s.Mc Gan Law Firm For Respondents : Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department ----- 2 ORDER petitioner has come up with above writ petition challenging dismissal of petition filed under Section 220(6) of Income Tax Act, 1961 by second respondent. 2. Heard Mr.N.Muralikumaran, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 3. demand made as per order of assessment is Rs.4,27,02,440/-. petitioner was asked to pay 50% of said demand immediately and balance 50% on or before 16th September 2014. Aggrieved over same, petitioner preferred appeal before first respondent and pending same, petitioner also filed petition under Section 220(6) of Income Tax Act, 1961, which was dismissed by second respondent vide impugned order dated 14.08.2014. 4. Apart from reliance placed upon Instruction No.96 and Instruction No.1914/93 dated 02.12.1993 and decision of Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 3 [(2010) 324 ITR 247 (Delhi)], learned counsel for petitioner also states that petitioner has already paid sum of Rs.25,00,000/- out of demand made by Department. 5. Therefore, writ petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside modifying imposition of condition to effect that petitioner shall pay 20% of impugned demand within period of four weeks from date of receipt of copy of this order. If petitioner makes payment, they shall have benefit of stay of recovery till disposal of appeal. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Index : Yes/No 25.09.2014 Internet : Yes/No vj2 To 1. Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeals (III) Office of Commissioner of Income Tax Aayakar Bhavan, Mahatma Gandhi Road Nungambakkam Chennai 600 034. 2. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle I, Vellore 4 V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J. vj2 W.P.No.26430 of 2014 25.09.2014. CPL Jewellers Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax-Appeals (III), Office of Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai/ Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-I, Vellore
Report Error