IN TI-E HON‘BLE HIGH mURT OE mHATEEaGKRH AT EILASPUR wan- pETITIONNo. _ Q 4O /2oos :- / Ram Narayan Agrawal some o-f late Balram Das‘ kgrawal ,, aged about 53 years. religion Hindu Profession Business. reaident 6f Huse No 268 samta calony, Rgxr b. i ap. Ta & Dstrict Raipur cG). W w‘o $ $9 w’ W" gTITmNER ‘ The Unicnf India Thmugh - h scretary, Dear Fi ptment of nanee. New Dlh / The Incmne Tax Apellate Tribunal g , O pr Benc. u (Mr 2) p Nagu h Nagpr ahaashtra) . /f Th nussioer of Income Tax (ppealf Raipur (C.G.). / T Incem ax fficer, l (1) 'Raipur (C‘ I‘ ITUTION OF INDIA wR ISSUANw OF APPROPRIATE WRIT(S)' OR ‘ I i' T WRT PETITION UNDER ARTIQE 226/227 OF THE wNST DER(S) AND DIRECIIoMS) To Do JUSTCE IN HE MATER. o . ‘w $ (.. Y wasv§ RESPONDEITS )41) a . Te e ei. § e Conln Asfl , 4) he e T O .G.) XI-HC—22 W mm mm 11-3-2005 Mr‘ Malay Kumar Bhaduri, c Mr. Amit Chaudhari, Junir Standing Counsei for the Income Tax Department appears for the respond nts. nsel for the petitioner. Heard both the counsel. - The relief sought by the peti ioner herein by this writ petition under A’rticie 226/227 of the Constitution of India that the effect and operation of Annexures P- 1, P-2 & P—3 passed by the respon ents be stayed tili the sitting of Division Bench (Members) in the incomeTax Appei te Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. Brief facts leading to friing this writ‘ petition are that the petitioner is an income tax assessee and he tiled th return of total income for the year 2001-2002 showing his income as Rs.92,100/— However, the income Tax Ofhcer assessed the income of the petitioner as Rs.20,9 ,297l- and accordingly, a notice was issued by the Assessing Ofhcer for demand f Rs.11,01,964I-. Copies of these orders are Annexures P—‘l & P-2. The petitio er preferred an appeal before the lncomeTax Commissioner (Appeals) and the sa e was dismissed by the Commissioner vide its - order dated 2—9-2004 against whic the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the income Tax Appeliate Tribuna As the disputed amount is more than Rs.5 lakhs, therefore, under the provisio s of the Income Tax Act, the appeal is to be heard by the Division Bench a no Division Bench is available at Nagpur. that till the Bench is available. at Nagpur, Therefore, the petitioner’s prayer n operation and implementation of re very under Annexures P-‘i & P-2 be stayed. Learned counsel for the peti ioner submitted that even the appeal has been preferred but, on account of’non‘a aiiability of two members of the Tribunal, the appeal is not being taken up for he ring on admission and stay, as such perforce, the petitioner has’preferred this writ petition as there is no other alternative remedy available to him. In the circumstances menti ned above, the request made by the petitioner refore, the operation and implementation of appears to be just and proper. , L A3 W . l ' e XI-HC—22 mam Warm WW#WW éawm w Soma recovery under Ahnexures P-1 & Pw and jn the meantime, if the Division Nagpur is not availabie, then the C transfer the appeal of the petitioner can be taken up for hearing or pass availabie at Nagpur for taking up of s With the above observation a Consequentiy, M.(W.)P.No.i disposed of. d copy of this order. / Parties are entitied for certme ,/ Sé} Z is stayed for a period of six weeks from today Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at halrman of the Income Tax Tribunal to either to a place where at, least the stay application necessary order that two Hon‘ble Members are uch DB matters. nd directions, the petition stands disposed of. 380/2005 and l.A.No.1672/2005 atso stand c. Bha‘w‘ . xudge