JOSHNA RAJENDRA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition by the assessee is directed against an order dated 23-04-2013, Annexure-E, whereunder 2nd respondent in exercise of power under sub-section (6) of Section 220 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred) to as "the Act, 1961" for short) has rejected the application for stay of the demand made pursuant to the assessment order dated 19-03-2013 for the assessment year 2009-10. Petitioner is also seeking for a direction to 1st respondent to dispose of the stay application, Annexure-F within a time frame. Heard Sri Ashok Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for petitioner/assessee and Sri K.V. Aravind, learned counsel appearing for respondent-revenue.

(2.) It is the contention of Sri Ashok Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that pursuant to assessment order passed by 2nd respondent on 19-03-2013, which was communicated to the assessee on 25-03-2013, immediately thereafter an appeal came to be filed on 01-04-2013 and in the meanwhile, 2nd respondent was contemplating to initiate recovery proceedings against assessee and as such, an application under Section 220(6) of the Act, 1961 was filed on 28-03-2013 vide Annexure-D for stay of the demand, contending inter alia that an appeal is proposed to be filed against an order of assessment dated 19.03.2013, Annexure-B and till then stay of collection be granted. Assessee also sought for personal hearing before 2nd respondent. 2nd respondent by order dated 23-04-2013 disposed of the said application by directing the assessee to pay taxes within 5 days from the date of receipt of said communication and also fixed the date of hearing as 30-04-2013 insofar as penalty proceedings are concerned. It is this order dated 23-04-2013 which is impugned in the present writ petition contending inter alia that opportunity has not been granted, by relying upon the following judgments:

(3.) Per contra, Sri K.V. Aravind, learned counsel appearing for respondent - revenue would support the order passed by 2nd respondent and would contend that in view of assessee having subsequently filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(Appeals)" for short) and an application for stay also having been filed, he would submit that same would be expeditiously considered and as such, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition or suitable directions being issued to the CIT(Appeals).