Anand Singh Chauhan and Company v. Income-tax Department / Commissioner of Income-tax, Nainital
[Citation -2020-LL-0714-5]

Citation 2020-LL-0714-5
Appellant Name Anand Singh Chauhan and Company
Respondent Name Income-tax Department / Commissioner of Income-tax, Nainital
Court HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 14/07/2020
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags stay of demand
Bot Summary: He has challenged the assessment order before this Court on several grounds. The demand being raised against the petitioner is of Rs.2,83,80,020/-. The petitioner moved an application before the Assessing Authority for stay of the demand, but since this application was not filed with the 25 per cent of the amount being demanded, his stay application has been rejected. Admittedly, the appeal of the present petitioner is also pending before the Appellate Authority. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani that the Appellate Court is not functioning is negated by the learned Counsel for the Revenue, on the instructions, that the Appellate Court is functioning through video conferencing. Under these circumstances, when the appeal of the petitioner is already pending, there is no occasion to interfere in the matter. The writ petition stands dismissed in limine.


WPMS No.1062 of 2020 Hon ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocate, for petitioner. Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate, for respondents. petitioner is Income Tax assessee. He has challenged assessment order before this Court on several grounds. demand being raised against petitioner is of Rs.2,83,80,020/- (Rupees Two Crore Eighty Three Lakh Eighty Thousand Twenty Only). petitioner moved application before Assessing Authority for stay of demand, but since this application was not filed with 25 per cent of amount being demanded, his stay application has been rejected. Admittedly, appeal of present petitioner is also pending before Appellate Authority. contention raised by learned counsel for petitioner Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani that Appellate Court is not functioning is negated by learned Counsel for Revenue, on instructions, that Appellate Court is functioning through video conferencing. Under these circumstances, when appeal of petitioner is already pending, there is no occasion to interfere in matter. Consequently, writ petition stands dismissed in limine. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 14.07.2020 Nitesh Anand Singh Chauhan and Company v. Income-tax Department / Commissioner of Income-tax, Nainital
Report Error