1 In High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 09.11.2017 Coram : Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM Writ Petition Nos.28483 & 28484 of 2017 & WMP.Nos.30598 & 30599 of 2017 M/s.Spaarkon Trading Chennai (P) Ltd., rep.by its Director Mr.Srinivas Ramachandran, Coimbatore-14. ...Petitioner Vs 1.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 6(2), 7th Floor, New Block, Room No.705, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. 2.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), II Floor, New Block, Room No.209, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. ...Respondents PETITIONS under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing respondents not to take any coercive steps as against petitioner until regular appointment of Appellate Authority being made and decide issue finally. For Petitioner : Mr.V.T.Gopalan, SC for Mr.S.Ashok Kumar For Respondents : Mr.A.P.Srinivas, SSC http://www.judis.nic.in 2 COMMON ORDER Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel accepts notice for respondents. Heard both. By consent, writ petitions are taken up for joint disposal. 2. petitioner seeks direction to respondents not to take any coercive steps against them until regular appointment of Appellate Authority is made and appeal petitions filed by petitioner against high pitched assessments for years 2012-13 and 2013-14 are decided by Appellate Authority. 3. Assessing Officer completed assessments for year 2012- 13 by order dated 27.3.2015 by assessing total income of petitioner at Rs.63,68,26,070/- and for year 2013-14 by order dated 30.3.2016 by assessing total income of petitioner at Rs.2,48,08,400/-. Aggrieved by such assessments, petitioner preferred appeals before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) along with stay petitions. 4. In so far as appeal filed as against assessment order for year 2012-13, there is delay of 312 days in filing appeal. As against assessment order for year 2013-14, appeal has been filed in time and same is now pending before Appellate Authority. It is submission http://www.judis.nic.in 3 of learned Senior Counsel for petitioner that petitioner has been receiving phone calls from Income Tax Department calling upon them to make payment of tax demanded in assessment orders for both years, failing which, they have been threatened with dire consequences and appeals filed by assessee having not been taken up for disposal nor stay petitions were taken up, respondent Department cannot compel petitioner to pay tax. 5. learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner submits that though appeals have been presented as early as 11.3.2016 and 28.4.2016 respectively, one of which was filed along with petition for condonation of delay and other appeal has been filed within period of limitation, till date, petitioner has not received any notice from Appellate Authority even in stay petitions, which they had filed. He would further submit that in cases of high pitched assessment, appropriate protection should be granted to assessee and while keeping appeal petitions pending, simultaneously coercive action should not be initiated for recovery of tax as assessed by Assessing Officer. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on decision of this Court in case of N.Jegatheesan Vs. DCIT [reported in (2016) 388 ITR 410]. http://www.judis.nic.in 4 6. In turn, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue would submit that if appeal is pending, Appellate Authority may be directed to consider stay petition at first instance and appropriate directions may be issued by this Court in this regard. 7. Considering factual position as set out in preceding paragraphs, it will be appropriate for this Court to issue necessary directions to Appellate Authority to dispose of stay petitions at first instance. 8. It is to be pointed out that in one of appeals, there is delay of 312 days in filing appeal. In petition filed for condonation of delay, petitioner stated that one Mr.B.Kannan was fully in charge of day-to-day activities of company. As his father was hospitalized, he had to spend considerable time with his father and in spite of his best efforts, his father passed away. This had terrible psychological effect on him and he was unable to attend his normal duties for sometime. Therefore, petitioner sought for condonation of delay. death certificate of director's father, who passed away on 27.7.2015, has been enclosed in typed set of papers. http://www.judis.nic.in 5 9. Thus, prima facie, it appears that reasons have been given by petitioner for not preferring one of appeals in time as against order of assessment for year 2012-13. However, in so far as assessment year 2013-14 is concerned, appeal has been presented in time. Therefore, Appellate Authority can exercise his discretion and entertain both appeals. Considering fact that stay petitions are pending since March and April 2016 respectively, Appellate Authority can take decision in stay petitions at first instance. 10. In light of above discussions, writ petitions are disposed of with direction to Appellate Authority to entertain appeal petitions and consider stay petitions in both appeals and after affording opportunity of personal hearing to authorized representative of petitioner, pass speaking order on merits and in accordance with law, within period of twelve weeks from date of receipt of copy of this order. Till stay petitions are heard and finally decided, respondents shall not initiate any coercive action against petitioner for recovery of tax and penalty as assessed and pursuant to both assessment orders. No costs. Consequently, connected WMPs are closed. 09.11.2017 Internet : Yes RS http://www.judis.nic.in 6 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J RS To 1.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 6(2), 7th Floor, New Block, Room No.705, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. 2.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), II Floor, New Block, Room No.209, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. WP.Nos.28483 & 28484 of 2017& WMP.Nos.30598 & 30599 of 2017 09.11.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in Spaarkon Trading Chennai (P) Ltd. v. DCIT, Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai/ Pr. CIT-I, Chennai/ ACIT (OSD), Chennai