AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2849 OF 2009 CG Lucy Switchgear Ltd., Mumbai. ... Petitioner Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax & Ors. ... Respondents ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2850 OF 2009 CG Lucy Switchgear Ltd., Mumbai. ... Petitioner Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. S. E. Dastur, senior counsel with Mr. Nishant Thakkar and Rajesh Poojary i/b Mulla & Mulla for the petitioner. Mr. Vimal Gupta for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 12TH MARCH, 2009. P.C.:- 1. In both these writ petitions, the question involved is whether the expenditure incurred by the petitioner-assessee for the AJN 2 business can be disallowed on the ground that the tax was not deducted at source or that the tax deducted at source has been deposited in the subsequent assessment year. 2. Writ Petition No.2849 of 2009 pertains to the Assessment Year 2005-06. The appeal filed by the petitioner-assessee against the assessment order is pending before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). During the pendency of the appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax directed the petitioner-assessee to deposit Rs.10 lakhs per month, till July, 2008. By order dated 17/9/2008, the petitioner was informed that his case is reviewed and he is now directed to pay the instalment of Rs.50 lakhs per month, from October, 2008. Thereafter, by the impugned order, the earlier order was vacated and for balance amount, attachment of the petitioner's bank account was directed. The petitioner is aggrieved by this order and has approached this court. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Since, admittedly, 83% of the total tax liability has already been paid by AJN 3 the petitioner-assessee and the hearing of the appeal has commenced on 19/2/2008, we are of the opinion that it would be just and proper to stay the balance demand and lifting the attachment levied on the bank account of the petitioner. 4. So far as Writ Petition No.2850 of 2009 is concerned, it appears that the assessment order therein for Assessment Year 2006-07 was passed on the basis of the assessment order in respect of Assessment Year 2005-06. Since the appeal preferred against the Assessment Year 2005-06 as well as appeal against assessment order passed in Assessment Year 2006-07 are pending, we are of the opinion that it would be just and proper that the petitioner-assessee should deposit an amount of Rs.15 lakhs by 25/3/2009. On such amount being deposited, there shall be stay of demand till the disposal of appeal and for a period of 8 weeks thereafter. 5. The petitions are disposed of. AJN 4 [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [J.P. DEVADHAR, J.]