M.K. Mahalakshmi v. The Commissioner of Income-tax (III), Coimbatore / The Income-tax Officer, Erode
[Citation -2017-LL-0922-8]
| Citation | 2017-LL-0922-8 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | M.K. Mahalakshmi |
| Respondent Name | The Commissioner of Income-tax (III), Coimbatore / The Income-tax Officer, Erode |
| Court | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 22/09/2017 |
| Assessment Year | 2009-10 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | stay of demand of tax • stay petition |
| Bot Summary: | Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent herein proceedings in PAN : AIXPM8662P /A.Y-2009- 10 dated 28.04.2014 is illegal and quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents within the time stipulated to dispose of the appeal pending before the 1st respondent. In 2 For Petitioner : Mr.K.Rajendra Prasad For Respondents : Mr.A.N.R.Jayaprathap ORDER Heard Mr.K.Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.N.R.Jayaprathap, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3.The petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the notice issued on 30.03.2017, which is a notice under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 addressed to the petitioner's bank, calling upon to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,380/- being the arrears of income tax payable by the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that as against the order of assessment dated 16.12.2016 for the assessment year 2009-2010, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the first respondent on 12.01.2017 and pending appeal, if the tax is directed to be paid or recovered, the petitioner would be put to prejudice. In 4 to the petitioner to approach the second respondent to file the stay petition to stay the demand of tax as qualified in the assessment order dated 16.12.2016 and the second respondent can be directed to take appropriate decision in the matter, considering the prima facie case which the petitioner makes out. Learned counsel for the petitioner pleads that the petitioner is ready and willing to go before the second respondent and file a stay petition but in the interregnum, the petitioner's interest may be protected. The petitioner shall file an application for stay of demand of tax as qualified in the assessment order dated 16.12.2016 and if such an application is filed, the second respondent is directed to consider the same and afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner/authorized representative and thereafter pass a speaking order on merits and in accordance with law. |