THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 24614 of 2009 Dated: 13-11-2009 Between: Meesala Chandraiah …Petitioner and The Commissioner of Income Tax-V, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad and another …Respondents Oral order: (Per GR, J) The petitioner assails the order dated 21-10-2009 of the 1st respondent rejecting his plea for stay of payment of the income-tax dues in respect of the assessment year 2005-06. The petitioner states to have paid Rs.1 lakh each for the months of August, September and October, and Rs.1 lakh for the month of November out of the amount of Rs.4 lakhs payable for November, under the earlier order dated 15-7-2009 granting instalments. The petitioner is an assessee under the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) on the rolls of the Income-Tax Officer, Wards 11 (2). In respect of the assessment year 2005-06, the returns of the petitioner were processed under Section 143 (1) of the Act. The 2nd respondent took up scrutiny, completed the assessment under Section 144 of the Act and determined the balance tax liability at Rs.4,18,376-00. The petitioner preferred an appeal thereagainst under Section 246A of the Act before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals). In respect of the assessment year 2006-07 an order of assessment dated 30-12-2008 was passed determining the balance tax liability of the petitioner at Rs.19,26,404-00. Thereagainst the petitioner did not file any appeal, but preferred a revision to the 1st respondent under Section 264 of the Act, on 10-7-2009. He applied to the 1st respondent for stay of payment of the tax due. The 2nd respondent by the order dated 15-7-2009 conveyed acceptance of the request for stay subject to payment of the tax dues in instalments; at Rs.1 lakh for the months of August, September and October and at the rate of Rs. 4 lakhs per month from November, 2009 to March, 2010. The petitioner, claiming financial stringency, again petitioned the 1st respondent to expeditiously dispose of the revision filed on 10-7-2009 under Section 264 of the Act and in the meanwhile grant him stay of payment of the instalments. This application was rejected by the 1st respondent by the impugned order and thereby the writ petition. We find no judicially reviewable infirmity in the order impugned. However in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the plea of the petitioner as to the financial distress, we consider it appropriate to direct the 1st respondent to expeditiously consider and dispose of the revision preferred by the petitioner under Section 264 of the Act, in any event within a period of (60) days from today. The writ petition is disposed of as above, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.R.Ashok, learned standing counsel for Income Tax. No costs. _____________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 13th November, 2009 GRR