S KARTHIKEYAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.B.Raveendran, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioners, two in number, have filed these writ petitions challenging four orders passed by the first respondent dated 14.09.2017 by which the first respondent has directed the petitioner to pay 20% of the total demand for being entitled for an order of interim stay of the remaining amount, as computed under the Assessment Orders for the years 2012-13 and 2014-15. Earlier, the petitioners S.Karthikeyan and Uma Shankar had approached this Court by filing W.P.Nos.22643 to 22646 of 2017 challenging the orders dated 16.05.2017, which is a garnishee order for recovery of the tax payable by respective assessees. The said writ petitions were disposed of by common order dated 24.08.2017 after taking into consideration that while stay petitions seeking stay of the tax as computed were pending, the Assessing Officer was not justified in issuing a notice under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The operative portion of the order and directions issued is extracted hereunder:

(3.) Pursuant to the above direction, the first respondent issued notice dated 28.08.2017 to the petitioners directing them to appear for a personal hearing with regard to the stay petitions filed by them. The petitioner would contend that though the personal hearing was posted on 01.09.2017 at 11.30am, they received the notice only on 01.09.2017 much after the time fixed for the personal hearing. Subsequently, by representation dated 08.09.2017 the petitioner informed the first respondent that they are awaiting the certified copy of the order in the earlier writ petitions and would appear as soon as the copy of the order is received. Subsequently, a fresh date was assigned for hearing of the stay petition i.e., on 17.09.2017, on which date the petitioner's authorized representative appeared. In pursuance thereof, the impugned order has been passed directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the total demand, being condition precedent for grant of stay. The petitioner is aggrieved by such condition by stating that they did not have adequate opportunity to put forth their case and the first respondent ought to have taken into consideration that the second respondent was solely guided by the third party evidence and came to the conclusion that the petitioner has purchased the property for a lesser price. Further, the statement referred to by the second respondent does not implicate the petitioner in any manner and therefore, the assessment has been made based on presumptions and assumptions.