K ANILKUMAR Vs. ASST COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is aggrieved with the decision of the learned Single Judge, which refused to interfere with the conditional order passed by the first appellate authority at Exhibit P3. The first appellate authority had directed remittance of 35% of the balance tax and interest demanded for the year, within three weeks. The learned Single Judge, after refusing to interfere with the order, gave a further time of two weeks to comply with the direction. The assessee is in appeal before us.

(2.) We find that the assessment was completed taking a higher gross profit than that conceded. The assessee challenged the same in first appeal, specifically contending that there were no defects noticed in the subject year and there could not have been a rejection based only on the earlier estimation made by the Assessing Officer of the assessee itself. In any event, we see that the first appellate authority has granted a stay on condition of payment of 35%. The learned Single Judge having refused to exercise discretion, it may not be proper for us to substitute the opinion of the learned Single Judge in an appeal. We, hence, feel that there is nothing to be interfered in the judgment. However, considering the impecunious circumstances pleaded, the appellant is granted three instalments to pay up the amount, starting from 09.08.2018 to 09.10.2018.