[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
M.Palanikumar vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income ... on 20 February, 2026
Author: Krishnan Ramasamy
Bench: Krishnan Ramasamy
W.P.(MD) No.4817 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.P.(MD)No.4817 of 2026
and
W.M.P.(MD).Nos.4025 and 4027 of 2026
M.Palanikumar ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Revenue Buildings,
V.P. Rathinasamy Nadar Road,
Madurai - 625 002.
2.The Income Tax Officer,
Income Tax Officer,
Non-Corporate Ward - 1(5),
Madurai - 625 002. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second
respondent dated 28.01.2026 in Ref. No.
ITBA/COM/F/17/2025-26/1085223013(1) and quash the same and
consequently directing the first respondent to dispose the Appeal filed by
the petitioner dated 18.11.2025 without insisting the pre-deposit.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 12:59:53 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.4817 of 2026
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Aravindan
For R-1 and R-2 : Mr.N.Dilipkumar,
Standing Counsel
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order
passed by the second respondent dated 28.01.2026 in Ref. No.
ITBA/COM/F/17/2025-26/1085223013(1) and consequently seeking a
direction to the first respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the
petitioner dated 18.11.2025 without insisting on the pre-deposit.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner had mobilised funds for the purpose of contract
business and had been carrying on such business for a long period. At
present, the petitioner is not carrying on any business. An assessment
order came to be passed, challenging which the petitioner has filed an
appeal. Along with the appeal, the petitioner filed a stay petition before
the Assessing Officer. However, the stay petition was rejected on the
ground that the petitioner had not paid 20% of the disputed demand,
despite sufficient opportunities having been granted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 12:59:53 pm )
3. The learned counsel would further submit that due to financial
constraints, the petitioner was not in a position to remit 20% of the
disputed demand. He fairly submits that if this Court fixes a lesser
amount, the petitioner is willing to comply with the same. This Court
suggested a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-, and the petitioner has requested
permission to remit the said amount in three instalments.
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents
would submit that as per the circulars, the petitioner is required to pay
20% of the disputed demand for grant of stay and would abide by any
condition that may be imposed by this Court.
5. Considering the submissions made on either side, it is seen that
the deposits in question, according to the petitioner, were amounts
collected from various persons and deposited in the bank account. Since
returns were not properly filed, the same were treated as income and the
assessment order was passed. In view of the fact that the appeal is
pending before the appellate authority, this Court is inclined to grant
interim protection in the interest of justice, subject to certain conditions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 12:59:53 pm )
6. Accordingly, there shall be an order of stay of all further
proceedings pursuant to the impugned assessment order, subject to the
petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- in the following
instalments:
(i) Rs.20,00,000/- on or before 09.03.2026;
(ii) Rs.15,00,000/- on or before 20.04.2026; and
(iii) Rs.15,00,000/- on or before 18.05.2026.
7. Subject to compliance with the above conditions, there shall be
a stay of all further proceedings until the disposal of the appeal by the
appellate authority.
8. In the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments,
the stay granted by this Court shall stand automatically vacated and
liberty is granted to the respondents to initiate recovery proceedings in
accordance with law.
9. The appellate authority is at liberty to proceed with the appeal
and dispose of the same in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any
observations made in this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 12:59:53 pm )
10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
20.02.2026
TSG
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Revenue Buildings,
V.P. Rathinasamy Nadar Road,
Madurai - 625 002.
2.The Income Tax Officer,
Income Tax Officer,
Non-Corporate Ward - 1(5),
Madurai - 625 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 12:59:53 pm )
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
TSG
20.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 12:59:53 pm )
