IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.3.2011 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.7137 of 2011 1 M/S.INDUS CITYSCAPES PETITIONER CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI MEGHARAJ Vs 1 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE II(3) 5TH FLOOR NEW BLOCK 121 MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD NUNGAMBAKKAM CHENNAI-34. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) 121 MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD NUNGAMBAKKAM CHENNAI-34. RESPONDENTS Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus forbearing the 1st respondent from initiating or continuing any proceedings for recovery of the disputed demand pursuant to the order of Assessment in PAN/GIR No.AABC12157A dated 23.12.2010 in respect of Assessment Year 2008- 09. For petitioner : Dr.Anita Sumanth For respondents : Mr.J.Narayanasamy O R D E R The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner is not liable to pay the tax, as assessed by the first respondent, under Section 143(3) and the interest thereon, under Sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the petitioner is a developer constructing residential houses and not a contractor, as claimed by the assessing authority. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had also submitted that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the second respondent, on 19.1.2011, challenging the assessment order passed by the first respondent. The petitioner had also filed a stay petition, to stay the recovery of the disputed demand and to direct the assessing officer not to treat the petitioner as an assessee in default, in respect of the demand of tax and interest, said to be payable by the petitioner, pending disposal of the appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had submitted, inter alia, that the second respondent may be directed to dispose of the stay petition, filed by the petitioner within a specified period, on the petitioner paying 50% of the total demand made by the assessing authority. 4. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the second respondent to dispose of the appeal, dated 19.1.2011, without directing the petitioner to pay 50% of the demand made by the assessing authority, as submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall co-operate, fully, during the hearings before the appellate authority. It is also made clear that no recovery proceedings shall be initiated against the petitioner, in respect of the disputed amount of tax and interest, liable to be paid by the petitioner till the disposal of the appeal, by the second respondent. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. lan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To: 1 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE II(3) 5TH FLOOR NEW BLOCK 121 MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD NUNGAMBAKKAM CHENNAI-34. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) 121 MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD NUNGAMBAKKAM CHENNAI-34. 1 cc to Dr. Anita Sumath, Advocate, Sr. 20158 1 cc to Mr.J. Narayanasamy, Advocate, sr. 20324 1 cc to government Pleader, Sr. 19807 Writ Petition No.7137 of 2011 JSV (CO) kk 24/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/