VINAYAK PRASAD Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) IN view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission as agreed to by the counsel for the parties.

(3.) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the assessment order, filed an appeal before CIT(A) but the same was also dismissed by means of an order (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). The petitioner, thereafter filed second appeal before the Tribunal on 9th March, 1992. He also moved a stay application on 24th Nov., 1992 which is Annexure--9 to the writ petition. As per the averments made in the petition, the said appeal and stay application have not yet been disposed of. In the meanwhile a penalty was also imposed under S. 271B and under S. 271(1)(c). The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal against the order imposing penalty before CIT which is pending before the said authority (Annexure-12 to the writ petition). During this pendency, however, a demand has been raised against the petitioner and recovery is being sought and since the aforesaid appeal and stay application have not yet been disposed of, petitioner having no other remedy, has filed the present writ petition.