SMT T N SHOBHA REDDY vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

HID. Pc lntI ire Br iNNV Fi 1 ’ h ;NF%LE x!P1 sTICV [3 s.[ BIlL W P No 10239J2012 T11 - t ( (lii I p ( I ip L NI Br ca N’’ -1’- (P MV hart Adv RESPONDENTS I 1’ r -‘ J I T TYT ( lii 1i ( ni \k\ [Pci j) Fl 1) T12 BETWEEN: D.mt TN l3hphlia Br-dde Aded ,Il(jI ND. xr No Bar 1 B Li, F) C Jr ag Bar lore -A) rH (By Sri, Ashok A. Kulkarni, Adv for M/s, K,R,Prasadl AND I ‘S C s PE’ JIONER

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 petilion is to the communication dated 14.03.20 12 produced at Annexure-El. By the said communication, the 211 respondent-Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IIL Bangalore has infonned 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 respondent. an appeal is preferred before the 2’”’ respondent along with an application seeking stay of recovery pursuant to the impugned order. Instead of considering the application on merits, the nc respondent has inlbrrned the ap)ellant before him writ petitioner herein to approach the Additional/Joint Commissioner seeking stay of the demand.

3 o. This Court in similar eiretnusi anees has held hx’ an order dated 19O42O12 assed In WPNo.1O26O/2O12 in the easy of SMT, ‘LN.SHOBHA REDDY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CfflCLE 7(1), BANGALORE AND OT..HER that the Commissioner has tiot a leiaI duty to examine on merits the app}ioahon flied seeklnti stay ann pas.s appro-pr ate orders. In passing such an order, t y Court has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in th.e ease of INCOME TAX OFFWER, CANNAWORE vs. MK.MOHAPvflJED KUNHI 1969(71) ITR 815 ann also the jodtrnent of the Division Bench o this Court in the ease of JAGADISH N HINDUJA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -1. BANGALORE AND ANOTHER in WA.No3397/2O1 I disposed of on 21 O42O1 1. 6. 101 the Intro ol the; ji. idcrnent aireadv rennereo as refereen to snira, thIs wr peh.tion deserves to be purt.I allowed. Ae.eordingJy, the; impugned eon.msun.ieatian is set aside, The pennoner is directed to appea.r hefore fhe f:u responrlen.h I ‘ a 63 00 2ia 2. 1 1 Ti iT21 \•Vneret.ifHDn 0 mt 0111 ssioi-iersriail consuler t.he at.)nlieatiort tiled thr stay and i 55; approt.;ria.te 1. 54

4 orders on merits. Until such an order Is passed by the 2nd respondent. (he jSt respondent shall desist from resorting to any coercive measures agalsnt the petitloner. Sd/ JUDGE VP

SMT T N SHOBHA REDDY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF