S AMARANARAYANA REDDY Vs. TAX RECOVERY OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned counsel takes notice for the respondents and by consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved against the notice of demand dated 23.10.2017, demanding a sum of Rs.18,30,02,681/- from the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice.

(3.) It is seen that in respect of the Assessment Years 2012-2013 and 2013- 2014, order under Section 143(3) was passed on 30.03.2015 and 31.03.2016 respectively by the Assessing Officer considering the sale proceeds of agricultural lands for Rs.22,64,39,900/-, Rs.7,34,89,759/- as income from business. Aggrieved against the said order of assessment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and it is stated that the appeal in respect of the Assessment Year 2012-2013 is posted for hearing on 27.12.2017. In the meantime, the petitioner Assessee moved a stay petition before the Assessing Officer, which was disposed of on 22.08.2016, by directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1.6 crores on or before 02.09.2016 and subject to such payment and production of the evidence for making such payment, for keeping the balance demand in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal by the CIT(A). The petitioner did not comply with the said order and however, filed a petition for stay before the Commissioner of Appeals and it is stated that the stay petition is still pending before the Appellate Authority. But in the mean time, the present impugned demand notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to pay the tax due, as stated supra within 15 days. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed before this Court challenging the said impugned demand.