SRI DINESH REDDY (HUF) vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

1 IT TI I B H IC H CCI PT OF RAR\’ATAKA AT E3ANCALORF DAT.ED THIS THE. 3.1 DAY OF .MAY, 201 2• B EFORE TI IF fIOI\ BLE MR.31;STIc:F B. S. PAT! F BETWEEN: Sri. Dines.h Red clv (ilL Fl No,44/4. Fairfield Layout, Off Race Course Road, Bungalore 560 001, PETITIONER (By Sri. Ashok A. Kulkarni, Adv, for MIs. K.WPrasad) AND: I The Aesi.staol Commissioner of Ineone Tax- Circle 6(1), Bauyalore. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax tfippxaisdIII No.oP, IlMi: B 3 (1 (ia.upr nagar. Eellary Road. Eauy’alore - 560 032. RESPONDENTS (By Sri, M.V,Seshachala, Adv,) TI is writ petition is Plc a nuder Articles 226 & 227 of the Coasfitut,ion of India., praying to issue an appropriate, writ, order or dineetion. in. the nature of certiorari quashi us the eararnia. nie a fin a cia ie...1. I :1 tip 20 12. i ci. n next cc’ F- I 1 a’ 2’ sea n-a a ciea.

2 This petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day. the Court made the following: ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. A short question arises for consideration in this writ petition. Hence, the same is taken up for final disposal. 3. Challenge in this writ petition is to the communication dated 14.03.2012 produced at Annexure-El. By the said communication, the 2nd respondent-CommIssioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ill, Bangalore has informed the petitioner to move the Additional/Joint Commissioner seeking stay of recovery of the demand raised. 4. The case of the petitioner Is that aggrieved by the order of assessment passed by the 1st respondent. an appeal Is preferred before the 211d respondent along with an application seeking stay of recovery pursuant to the Impugned order. Instead of considering the application on merits, the 2m1 respondent has informed the appellant before him writ petitioner herein to approach the Addhional/Joim Commissioner seeking slay of the demand.

3 5, This Court. in sirni.lar rireun.ista.necs has. held dv an orGer dated. 1 90420l 2 pa.ssed in WP,No, 10260/2012 in the case of SMT. TNSHOBIM REDDY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7(1), BANGALORE AND ANOTHER that r o r a — — F f ( u fl S applieauon tiled m,ekirig slav arici pass appropriate oruers. In passing sneh a.n order, this Court h..as placed reliance cii the iudsancnt of du Apex Cot trf in ±e case of INCOME TAX OFFWER, ANNANORE vs. MK.MOIMMMED KUNHI - 1969(71) ITR 815 id also sac jrntunicnt of she Division Bench of this Court in the case of JAGISH N HINDUJA vs. COMMISSIONER OF iNCOME TAX .(APPEALS) -1, BANGALORE AND ANOTHER in WAJVo3397/201 I olsaosed of on 21 04201 1, 6. In th.c tight of the j’udgnient. already ren,dered as reh..reed 1 ,. “F t Accordi.nglv. th.e smpugned commnn ical,ion. is set. aside, The prnooacr is di rccicr ii aapcar hclorc the 2’ ras n5ririat.... Ccnanflssio cr at Income Tax (Appeals3111. t3a,mialorc. on. 08,06 ° 12 Irt 11 00 AM. Whcrcn sian 15 c Coratuissioner ohall F FF F orders on ruerts, ldrittl. sue.S an. order is passcd ira the 2

4 respondent, the lt respondent shall desist from resorting to any coercive measures agaisnt the petitioner. Sd! JUDGE VP

SRI DINESH REDDY (HUF) vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX