Dr. Rajesh Rajora vs. The Deputy Commissioner In Income Tax 1[1]

W.P. No.17562/2012 05.11.2012 Shri Vishnu Sharma, Advocate with Shri Sumit Nema and Shri Mukesh Agrawal, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Lal, Advocate for respondents. The petitioner has sought following reliefs:- "7.1 To stay the demand created by the respondent No.1 till the appeal is decided by respondent No.3. 7.2 To direct respondent No.3 to hear and decide the appeal of the petitioner expeditiously. 7.3 To issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case to give relief to the petitioner." The case of the petitioner is that he is an I.A.S. officer. A search was conducted in the premises of the petitioner and there were certain seizure. Against the assessment order dated 30.12.2010 appellant has filed an appeal under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act before the respondent No.3 which is pending for consideration since January 2011. As the assessment order is affecting the career of the petitioner, it is prayed that the respondent No.3 may be directed to consider and decide the appeal expeditiously. It is submitted that along with the appeal petitioner has also filed an application seeking stay. But till date the aforesaid application has not been decided. It is also submitted that respondent No.3 may be directed to consider and decide the application for stay also expeditiously. Though the prayer is opposed by Shri Sanjay Lal, but considering the fact that the appeal and stay application both are pending since January, 2011, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent No.3 to consider and

decide the stay application, otherwise the petitioner may suffer substantially. In an identical matter W.P. No.3488/2011 (Arun Sahlot vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax and others) a division bench of this Court considering the similar circumstances disposed of the matter with certain directions and prayer of the petitioner is identical. For ready reference the order in Arun Saholt is referred, which reads thus:- "Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner's appeals against the assessment order dated 31.12.2010 for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2009-10 are pending before respondent No.3. The petitioner has also filed an application seeking stay of the recovery on 7.1.2011, but till date, the applications in all the appeals have not been considered. It is submitted that respondent No.3 be directed to consider the stay application and also decide the appeal expeditiously. Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that a period of three months be allowed to respondent No.3 to decide the appeal and also the stay application. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that so far as the stay application is concerned, it deserves consideration within a reasonable period and we direct respondent No.3 to consider the aforesaid application expeditiously. Similarly all the appeals filed by the petitioner may be disposed of as per the statement made by Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the respondents. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (1) Petitioner to file applications in all the appeals for hearing stay application, stated to be filed on 7.1.2011. (2) Respondent No.3, on filing of aforesaid applications shall consider and decide

the

applications

for

stay, expeditiously as far as possible within a

period of 15 days from the date of filing of such applications. (3) So far as appeals are concerned, the respondent No.3 shall make an endeavour to decide the aforesaid appeals as far as possible, within a period of three months, as stated by Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the respondents. (4) Till the application for stay is decided or for a period of three weeks, respondents shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner for enforcing recovery in question. Considering the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs." As the case of the petitioner is identical, this petition is finally disposed of with following directions:- 1. The petitioner to file an application for expeditious hearing of the stay application, stated to be pending along with the appeal. 2. On filing of such an application, the respondent No.3 shall consider and decide the application for stay, expeditiously, as far as possible, within a period of 30 days, from the date of filing of such application. 3. So far as appeal is concerned, the respondent No.3 shall make an endeavour to hear and decide the appeal expeditiously, as far as possible, within a period of 4 months. 4. Till the application for stay is decided or for a period of 30 days, whichever is earlier, it is directed that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner for enforcing recovery in question. Considering the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge