Madras High Court
Ramasamy Rajkumar vs The Principle Commissioner Of ... on 9 October, 2023
W.P.No.29053 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.10.2023
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy
W.P.No.29053 of 2023
and
W.M.P.Nos.28640 and 28641 of 2023
Ramasamy Rajkumar ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax -1,
8th Floor, Income Tax Annex,
Building No.63, Race Course Road,
Coimbatore- 641 018.
2. The Income Tax Officer,
National Faceless Assessment Center,
New Delhi.
3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
8th Floor, Income Tax Annex,
Building No.63, Race Course Road,
Coimbatore- 641 018. ...Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for
records relating to order in C.No.117(26) stay petition/PCIT-1/23-24 dated
31.08.2023, passed by the first respondent and to quash the same and
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29053 of 2023
thereby, to direct the third respondent to dispose of the pending Appeal
without insisting upon payment of any amount of pre-deposit.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Ramesh
For Respondents : Mr.R.S.Balaji
Senior Standing Counsel
ORDER
With consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final
disposal at the stage of admission itself.
2. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the order
passed by the Principal Commercial of Income Tax-I, Appellate Authority,
the first respondent in a Petition for Stay, in C.No.117(26) stay
petition/PCIT-1/23-24, dated 31.08.2023.
3. The second respondent, Income Tax Officer passed an assessment
order, dated 21.03.2023, under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961
(hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act') whereby, a tax liability of
Rs.1,48,54,156/- was determined for the assessment year 2018-19 under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29053 of 2023
best judgment assessment on the ground that the petitioner has failed to file
returns and apart from demand of tax liability, penalty proceedings were
also initiated under Sections 270A, 271 AAC and 272 A(1) (d) of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') and a total demand of
Rs.2,44,47,282/- was determined against the petitioner.
4. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the second
respondent/the Income Tax Officer, the petitioner filed an Appeal before the
first respondent/Appellate Authority and along with the Appeal, the
petitioner also filed a Petition for Stay and the first respondent/Appellate
Authority, by the impugned order, dated 31.08.2023, directed the petitioner
to pre-deposit 20% of the tax demanded, which works to Rs.47,89,456/- and
granted stay for the balance amount. The petitioner finds that the impugned
order requiring the petitioner to pre-deposit 20% of the tax as onerous,
which has resulted in filing of this Writ Petition, seeking to quash the said
condition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29053 of 2023
5. Mr.T.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has
submitted that the petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing
handloom sarees. and the total turnover of the petitioner's business itself is
only Rupees One Crore and by virtue of the impugned order, the petitioner
was directed to 20% of tax, which comes to Rs.47,89,456. The learned
counsel submitted that the petitioner is a just a handloom weaver, and hence,
he would be unable to muster so much amount within a short span of time,
and therefore, requested for consideration of reduction of the deposit
amount,
6. Mr.R.S.Balaji, learned Senior Standing Counsel, who accepts
notice on behalf of the respondents would submit that since the petitioner
failed to file returns, the second respondent passed the assessment order,
dated 21.03.2023 and though the petitioner filed Appeal against the said
order, since a sum of Rs.1,36,79,856/- is in cash rotation on the petitioner's
bank account, the Appellate Authority imposed the condition of pre-
depositing 20% of the tax and same is only reasonable and not onerous as
contended by the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29053 of 2023
7. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
materials on record.
8. After hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties and
perusing the materials placed on record, it could be easily inferred that the
grievance of the petitioner is only with regard to conditional stay order
passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby, the petitioner is directed to
pre-deposit 20% of the demanded tax, which comes around Rs.47,89,456/-
for entertaining the Appeal.
9. After noting the factual details of the case, coupled with the
further fact that the petitioner is engaged in the manufacturer of Handloom
Sarees, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the first
respondent/Appellate Authority requiring the petitioner to pay 20% of the
tax demand is on the higher side. Therefore, this Court directs the petitioner
to deposit Rs.10,00,000/- instead of 20% (which come around
Rs.47,89,456/-) of the impugned demand ordered by the Appellate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29053 of 2023
Authority within a period of eight weeks, which starts from today. Upon
such payment made by the petitioner, the third respondent/Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals) is directed to entertain the appeal.
10. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of on the aforesaid
terms. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
09.10.2023
sd
Index : yes/no
Neutral Citation : yes/no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29053 of 2023
To
1. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax -1,
8th Floor, Income Tax Annex,
Building No.63, Race Course Road,
Coimbatore- 641 018.
2. The Income Tax Officer,
National Faceless Assessment Center,
New Delhi.
3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
8th Floor, Income Tax Annex,
Building No.63, Race Course Road,
Coimbatore- 641 018.
Krishnan Ramasamy,J.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29053 of 2023
sd
W.P.No.29053 of 2023
09.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
