2011 (4) TMI 632 - HC - Income Tax

Dispose of the appeal - the respondents had submitted that the petitioner may be directed to deposit 25% of the amount demanded by the first respondent, before a direction is issued to the second respondent, to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner - the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the second respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner, dated 19.01.2011, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
1. Direction to dispose of appeal filed by petitioner.
2. Direction not to proceed against petitioner before appeal disposal.
3. Requirement of depositing 25% of demanded amount.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner requested the court to direct the second respondent to dispose of the appeal concerning a demand made by the first respondent for the assessment year 2008-09 before any action is taken against the petitioner. The court, after hearing both parties, found it appropriate to order the second respondent to adjudicate on the appeal within 12 weeks from the date of the order. The court explicitly stated that the first respondent should refrain from taking any action against the petitioner until the appeal is finalized by the second respondent.

2. The respondents, through their counsel, proposed that the petitioner should deposit 25% of the amount demanded by the first respondent before any direction is given to the second respondent to handle the appeal. However, the court did not find it necessary to impose such a condition and proceeded to order the disposal of the appeal without requiring any upfront deposit from the petitioner.

3. The court based its decision on the submissions made by both counsels and the content of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The judgment emphasized the need for the appeal to be resolved on its merits and in accordance with the law within a specified timeframe. Additionally, the court clarified that no costs were to be imposed on either party, and a connected miscellaneous petition was closed as a consequence of the judgment.