Bombay High Court
Ashokkumar Haribhai Gajera vs Union Of India on 21 January, 2025
Author: M.S.Sonak
Bench: M.S.Sonak
2025:BHC-OS:982-DB 12.wp.5053-2024.docx
Pradnya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Digitally
WRIT PETITION NO. 5053 OF 2024
signed by
PRADNYA
PRADNYA MAKARAND
MAKARAND BHOGALE
BHOGALE Date: Ashokkumar Haribhai Gajera, ]
2025.01.23
11:20:21
+0530 Age-59, 31, Kalpvruksha, ]
27 B G Kher Marg, Malabar Hill, ]
Mumbai - 400 006 ] ...Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Union of India, ]
through Secretary, ]
Ministry of Finance ]
Department of Revenue, ]
Room No.46, North Block, ]
New Delhi - 110 001 ]
2. Assistant Commissioner of Income-]
tax, Circle 19(1) ]
506, Piramal Chambers, ]
Lalbaug, Mumbai - 400012 ]
3. Assessing Officer, ]
National Faceless Assessment ]
Centre (NFAC) ]
New Delhi ]
4. Principal Commissioner of Income ]
tax-19, 617, Piramal Chambers, ]
Lalbaug, Mumbai - 400012 ]
5. Commissioner of Income tax ]
Appeal, National Faceless Appeal ]
Centre (NFAC), New Delhi ] ...Respondents
__________________________________________________________
A PPEARANCES -
Adv Rajendra, for the Petitioner.
Adv Mamta Omle, for the Respondents.
__________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 3
::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2025 22:07:56 :::
12.wp.5053-2024.docx
CORAM : M.S.Sonak &
Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATED : 21 January 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Jitendra Jain, J):-
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the
request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties.
3. This Petition for Assessment Year 2022-2023 is filed
seeking following prayer :-
"A. The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the
nature of writ of mandamus to stay the demand of Rs.30.75
Crores (approx), raised with regard to the Valuation of a
property, till the disposal of appeal by the First Appellate
Authority."
4. The demand for above Assessment Year arose on
account of assessment order in which based on valuation of a
property, report of which was not shared with the assessee as
per the learned counsel for the Petitioner, addition was made.
The assessee has challenged the assessment order by filing an
appeal and had also filed an application for stay of demand
with the Assessing Officer under Section 220(6) of the Income
Tax Act.
5. The Assessing Officer vide his order dated 27 November
2024 has directed the Petitioner to pay 20% of the demand.
Aggrieved by the said order the Petitioner has made an
application for stay of the demand with the Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCIT") and also before the
12.wp.5053-2024.docx
Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals ["CIT(A)"]. The stay
application filed before the PCIT and CIT(A) is pending as on
today.
6. Meanwhile, on a very similar situation in the Petitioner's
own case for the Assessment Year 2015-2016, the PCIT vide
order dated 10 December 2024 has stayed the demand.
7. In the light of above facts, we direct the PCIT to decide
the stay application filed with him for the Assessment Year
under consideration within a period of four weeks from the
date of uploading the present order.
8. The PCIT to grant the personal hearing to the Petitioner
and after hearing the Petitioner would pass a detailed
speaking order deciding the stay application.
9. Since in Assessment Year 2015-2016, the department
has stayed the recovery of the demand, by way of an interim
order we direct the Respondents not to take any coercive
action for recovery for a period of four weeks from the date of
uploading the present order.
10. The Petitioner is directed to appear before the PCIT on
28 January 2025 and file an authenticated copy of this order
so that the stay application can be taken up for hearing as
directed above.
11. The Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
(Jitendra Jain, J) (M. S. Sonak, J)
