IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.04.2011 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.9313 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 M/s.Arun Excello Foundations Private Limited, A Private Limited Company Incorporated under the Provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, Represented by its Managing Director, Mr.Suresh, Bhattad Towers, No.18, West Cott Road, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle (1) 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals – III), 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in Order PAN AABCA 9168K/2008-09 relating to the application made by the petitioner for stay of demand under section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and quash the order dated 21.03.2011 rejecting the stay petition and direct the first respondent to grant stay of demand relating to the assessment order for the assessment year 2008-09, pending disposal of the appeal before the second respondent. For petitioner : Mr.R.Sivaraman For respondents : Mr.J.Narayanasamy https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would sufficie if the second respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner, dated 19.01.2011, in respect of the demand made by the first respondent, for the assessment year, 2008-09 and if the first respondent is directed not to proceed against the petitioner, in respect of the said demand, before the appeal is disposed of by the second respondent. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the petitioner may be directed to deposit 25% of the amount demanded by the first respondent, before a direction is issued to the second respondent, to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner. 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 on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the second respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner, dated 19.01.2011, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the first respondent shall not proceed against the petitioner till the final orders are passed in the said appeal, by the second respondent. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. cse Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle (1) 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals – III), 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. + 1 cc to Mr. R. Sivaraman, Advocate SR No.25964 + 1 cc to Mr. J. Narayanaswamy, Advocate SR No.26221 Writ Petition No.9313 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 TRM(CO) SR/5.5.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/