MANATH MUHAMMED ISMAIL, vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The present writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to dispose of Exhibits P-5, P-6, P-7 and P-8 appeals and Exhibits P-9, P-10, P-11 and P-12 stay applications preferred by the petitioner/assessee against the assessment orders in Exhibit P-1 to P-4 passed under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the IT Act, 1961 for short).

The petitioner is a real estate broker. A search was conducted in the business premises of Veekay Group and Archbishop’s House and other associated persons on 26.08.2018. In the return of his income for the assessment year 2016-17, the petitioner had shown an income of Rs. 3,00,000/- only. There were entries in respect of the payments made to the petitioner by the said group and, therefore, a notice under Section 153 C of the IT Act, 1961 was issued and served on the petitioner. In response to the said notice, the petitioner had filed his return of income on 09.12.2020 offering an income of Rs. 6,89,870/-.

The petitioner has approached the appellate authority with a considerable delay of three months along with the application for condoning the delay and stay petition. Now the petitioner has come before this Court to grant interim order regarding the recovery of the tax assessed in the assessment orders which cumulatively comes to Rs. 1,28,57,490/-. This Court enquired from the learned Counsel for the petitioner that whether the petitioner is willing to deposit 20% of the assessed tax so that the remaining amount can be ordered to be stayed till the disposal of the application for condoning the delay and stay petition. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the assessee is not in a position to deposit even the 20% of the assessed tax amount.

This Court does not exercise parallel juri iction with the appellate authority. The petitioner's appeals along with the WP(C) NO. 1075 OF 2024 4 applications for condoning the delay and stay petitions are pending and as the petitioner is not willing to deposit even 20% of the assessed tax, this Court would not like to stay the demand as assessed in the assessment orders in Exhibits P-1 to P-4. Thus, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law on the applications of the petitioner for condoning the delay as well as the stay petitions expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months. However, it is made clear that this Court has not granted any interim relief to the petitioner. DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE Svn