W.P.No.8209 of 2020 and WMP Nos.9785,9787 and 9792 of 2020 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.06.2020 CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN W.P.No.8209 of 2020 and WMP Nos.9785, 9787 and 9792 of 2020 Narayanamoorthy Gnana Mugundan, Rep. By Accountant A.Mohanraj .. Petitioner Vs. 1. Income Tax Officer, Non-Corp WD22(1) TBM, 1st and 2nd Floor, Ramakrishna Salai, West Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. 2. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 034. 3. Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, No.2, Tannery Road, Somasundaram Nagar, Pallavaram, Chennai- 600 043. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records of http://www.judis.nic.in Page 1 of 5 W.P.No.8209 of 2020 and WMP Nos.9785,9787 and 9792 of 2020 first respondent in PAN No.BMNPG2851F DIN & Letter No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2019-20/1026414321(1) for assessment year 2017 18, quash proceedings dated 11.03.2020 issued therein and further grant absolute stay of his Assessment Order in Order No. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2019-20/1021932553(1) dated 09.12.2019 for Assessment Year 2017-18 pending disposal of appeal on file of Second Respondent herein. For Petitioner : Mr.R.L.Ramani, Senior Counsel for Mr. B. Raveendran For Respondents : Mr.Prabhu Mukundh Arunkumar for RR 1 & 2 ORDER This matter is taken up for hearing through Video-Conferencing. 2. petitioner is aggrieved by order passed under Section 220 (6) of Income Tax Act requiring him to pay 20% of tax due, to treat him as assessee not in default, made by Assessing Officer in view of fact that Appeal filed by petitioner under Section 246 is pending before Commissioner Appeals viz., second respondent. http://www.judis.nic.in Page 2 of 5 W.P.No.8209 of 2020 and WMP Nos.9785,9787 and 9792 of 2020 3. Mr.R.L.Ramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner would contend that Assessing Officer had merely referred to circular of CBDT for directing petitioner to pay 20% of tax due, without going into other aspects. He would also rely upon judgment of this Court in WP No.3849 of 2019, wherein, Hon'ble Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth, had after considering scope of Section 220 (6), held that Assessing Officers need not mechanically follow circulars of CBDT, since they are only in nature of guideline. This Court has also pointed out that Assessing Officer has to consider other facts also while determining percentage of amount of disputed Tax that is to be deposited by assessee to claim benefits of Subsection 6 of Section 220. 4. Mr.Prabhu Mukundh Arunkumar, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 would contend that Officer is justified in following directions of CBDT. This very question has been considered by this Court in WP No.3849 of 2019. http://www.judis.nic.in Page 3 of 5 W.P.No.8209 of 2020 and WMP Nos.9785,9787 and 9792 of 2020 5. In view of said judgment, I am of considered opinion that present impugned order has to go, hence impugned order is set aside. matter is remitted back to Assessing Officer to enable him to pass orders afresh in light of directions issued by this Court in WP No.3849 of 2019. 6. Writ Petition is disposed of with above observation. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 12.06.2020 jv Index : Yes /No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order/ Non Speaking order To 1. Income Tax Officer, Non-Corp WD22(1) TBM, 1st and 2nd Floor, Ramakrishna Salai, West Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. 2. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 034. 3. Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, No.2, Tannery Road, Somasundaram Nagar, Pallavaram, Chennai- 600 043. http://www.judis.nic.in Page 4 of 5 W.P.No.8209 of 2020 and WMP Nos.9785,9787 and 9792 of 2020 R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. jv W.P.No.8209 of 2020 and WMP Nos.9785,9787 and 9792 of 2020 12.06.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in Page 5 of 5 Narayanamoorthy Gnana Mugundan v. Income-tax Officer, Non-Corp WD22(1), Chennai /The Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai / Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank