NEELAM LODHA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ, order or direction to direct the respondents to grant stay of the disputed demand of Rs. 1,10,43,910 and not to treat the humble petitioner as the defaulter and not to recover the said amount or any part of it from the petitioner. THE petitioner further seeks a writ order or direction to the effect that pending hearing of this petition this court pass appropriate order for prohibiting/restraining the respondents and their successor-in-office from taking any further steps or proceedings to recover the disputed demand of Rs: 1,10,43,910.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner vide annexure 6, dated February 7, 2002, represented before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Jaipur, Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-2, Jaipur, and Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur, in the matter of the disputed demand of Rs. 1,10,43,910 plus interest outstanding against the petitioner for the block period April 1, 1989, to November 16, 1999. But no order whatsoever has been passed on the application for staying the disputed demand, dated February 7, 2002, by the authorities.

(3.) IN support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji of Mewar v. ITAT [1997] 223 ITR 192 (Raj), wherein this court has held that the accountable person was entitled to an order of stay of collection of the entire estate duty during the pendency of appeal. The Tribunal was not justified in directing deposit of 25 per cent, of disputed duty.