M/S.RAINBOW REALTORS, vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Ext.P5 is challenged in the writ petition and the challenge is confined to firstly the condition of depositing 20% and directing deposit of amount in equal four installments.

The operative portion of Ext.P5 reads thus: “Without going into merits of the case at this point and considering all circumstances of the case, I direct the appellant to pay 20% of the total demand for A.Y 2011-12 to 2016-17 in four equal monthly installments. The challan of first payment shall be furnished to the Assessing Officer by 22nd of March, 2019. it is again reiterated that the stay petitions are disposed without going into merit of the case which requires in depth examination. The balance demand is stayed for six months or disposal of appeal whichever is earlier. Any default on the part of the appellant to furnish any of the -3- payment challans will automatically entail revocation of stay granted and the Assessing Officer shall be free to take recovery action accordingly. The stay petitions for A.Y 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 of the appellant are disposed of accordingly.”

The learned counsel made a few submissions to convince this Court that adherence to bench mark deposit of 20% in the case on hand is completely unwarranted and that the petitioner has already deposited Rs.98,44,201/- (Rupees Ninety eight lakh forty four thousand two hundred and one only) and by accepting the said deposit as due compliance with the condition imposed in Ext.P5 the appeals can be directed to be disposed of. The counsel alternatively submits that for paying the balance of 10% of amount the petitioner may be granted eight more installments.

Sri.Christopher Abraham contends that Ext.P5 reflects exercise of discretion to the extent necessary for the -4- purpose of granting stay of the assessment order under appeal before the 2nd respondent. The very fact that four equal installments are granted by the 2nd respondent indicates consideration of all relevant circumstances including the hardship which was brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent. The case does not warrant interference against the discretion exercised by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P5. He prays for dismissing the writ petition. He alternatively submits that the petitioner since has established a few bona fides by depositing Rs.98,44,201/- (Rupees Ninety eight lakh forty four thousand two hundred and one only) the four equal installments granted in Ext.P5 can be extended reasonably by this Court.

After perusing the Ext.P5, I am satisfied that the condition imposed cannot be treated as arbitrary or unreasonably in the facts and circumstances of the case. The -5- 2nd respondent has granted four equal installments. In all the circumstances granting four equal installments amounts to granting sufficient time for complying with the condition imposed by the appellate authority. But keeping in mind the hardship now pleaded by the counsel appearing for the petitioner as an exceptional case and the exercise of the jurisdiction of the this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the installments are extended from four to six installments. Thereby the modified order reads thus: “Without going into merits of case at this point and considering all circumstances directs petitioner to pay 20% of the total demand for A.Y 2011-12 to 2016-17 in six equal monthly installments. The challan of next payment shall be furnished to the Assessing Officer by 15.07.2019. In other words, the instalments are completed on or before 11.9.2019. It is again reiterated that the stay petitions are disposed