9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e earliest. Writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to deposit 5% of the disputed demand made in the impugned orders as per Annexures-Y, and Z(B) dated 25.7.2018 and 31.7.2018 respectively by the 5th respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order - Writ Petition No. 35603/2018(T-IT) - - - Dated:- 20-8-2018 - MR. B. VEERAPPA J. Petitioner (By Sri Akshaya B. M., Advocate) Respondents (By Sri K.V. Aravind, Advocate) - O R D E R The petitioner filed the present writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the demand notices dated 25.7.2018 and 31.7.2018 vide Annexures Y Z(B) respectively issued by the 5th respondent for payment of additional 10% deposit and also for direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.2 after hearing the petitioner passed an order dated 15.3.2016 rejecting the submissions of the petitioner and categorized the differential share premium amount of ₹ 8,15,390/- as income from other sources under Section 56(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also additional share capital amounting to ₹ 3,91,89,304/- as cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, for computation of income of the petitioner for the assessment year 2013-14 and on the same day i.e., 15.3.2016 issued demand notice determining ₹ 1,76,97,570/- as income tax payable by the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal via online before the first appellate authority i.e, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) i.e., Respondent No.3 on 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore CIT(A)-4. Therefore petitioner is before this Court mainly contending that he has already paid 10% of the demand in pursuance of the interim order dated 10.11.2017 passed by the appellate authority and therefore till the appeal is disposed of, the 5th respondent cannot demand balance amount. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 6. Sri Akshay B.M., learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition contended that the petitioner already paid 10% of the demand in terms of the interim order dated 10.11.2017 passed by the appellate authority on 28.6.2018. Therefore till the appeal is disposed of, the respondent cannot demand another 10% because of the Board s resolution. Theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is also not in dispute that in view of the modified Board s Instruction No.1914 dated 21.3.1996, vide office memorandum dated 31.7.2017, the petitioner was required to pay 20% of the disputed demand pending disposal of CIT(A)-4 before the Appellate Authority. 10. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the petitioner is directed to pay 5% of the disputed demand made in the impugned orders as per Annexures-Y, and Z(B) dated 25.7.2018 and 31.7.2018 respectively, it is suffice in the interest of both the parties and it is expected that the Lower Appellate Authority shall dispose of the appeal which is reserved for judgment at the earliest. 11. In view of the above, wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
