IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 3571 of 2009 Between: D.Y. Das S/o. D. Potha Raju R/o. L.I.G. B-281, A.S. Rao Nagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-V Ayakar Bhavan, III Floor, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 2 Income Tax Officer Ward No. 16 (1) Ayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in not exercising the jurisdiction vested in it, and suspending the assessment order dated 31-12-2008 passed by the 2nd Respondent with regard to PAN No. AAZPD4222E is illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents not to make any demand for the payment of the amount during the pendency of the appeal before the 1st Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. N. ASHOK KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR. B. NARASIMHA SARMA The Court made the following : ORDER: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. Service or Rule is waived by Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. At the request of the learned Advocates, the petition is finally heard today. The grievance, which has been made in the petition, is with regard to non-disposal of application for stay by respondent No.1. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that against the assessment order for the year 2006- 2007 dt.31.12.2008 the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V - respondent No.1. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner has also submitted an application so as to stay the recovery proceedings. The said application has not been decided so far, though the application was received by the office of respondent No.1 on 5.2.2009. The aforestated facts could not be disputed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Looking to the facts of the case, in our opinion, ends of justice would be served if respondent No.1 is directed to decide the stay application filed by the petitioner as soon as possible and preferably within four weeks from today. We are sure that after hearing the petitioner, respondent No.1 shall pass a final order as directed hereinabove. In view of the above directions, the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 29-04-2009 bnr