9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l for the respondents, this Court feels it appropriate to direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) instead of 20% of the total disputed demand as directed by the 3rd respondent vide impugned order. Accordingly, the petitioner petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon such deposit, the respondents shall stay the recovery of tax demand until the disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the first respondent. This Court, generally at the instance of the learned Standing counsel, adjourns the matters for filing counter affidavits from time to time. In one matter, even after adjourning ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any excuse for not filing the counter affidavits in time. - Honourable Mr. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy For the Petitioner : Mr. K. Vasanthanayagan For the Respondents : Dr. B. Ramaswamy Senior Standing Counsel ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 30.07.2024 vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1067131469(1) passed by the third respondent and to direct the respondents to stay the recovery of tax demand until the disposal of the appeal by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2. The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent has passed an assessment order dated 16.02.2024 denoting Rs. 60,85,600/- as additional income from other source under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duce the amount, the petitioner may be directed to pay 15% of the total disputed demand. 5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6. On a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition it is seen that the petitioner is a widow and her family property was sold for a total sum of Rs. 21,85,000/-, whereas the assessment order was passed for a sum of Rs. 57,72,878/- against which, an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner. The third respondent has passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the total disputed demand. Since the petitioner is a widow and facing financial problem, she expressed her hardship in paying 20% of the total disputed demand as directed as directed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... djournment, when the matter came up for first hearing and facilitated this Court to dispose of the matter without keeping it pending for want of counter. 11. When the learned Senior Standing Counsel is able to file the counter on the very first day of hearing, this Court is unable to understand as to why the other learned standing counsels are unable to file the counter affidavits in time in their respective matters. 12. Generally, the litigant public is under impression that pendency of the cases is at the instance of the Courts. But the Courts will always take strenuous efforts to dispose of the matters where both the parties have made out the pleadings. Majority of Writ Petitions have been pending for want of counter affidavits and lack ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
