C. Abdul Maharoof, Chembayil House, Putharikkal P.O., Parappangadi, Malappuram 676 303 vs The Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation)-1, Kochi Central Revenue Building, I.S Press Road, Kochi 682 018 and Others

Surendra Mohan, J.—The complaint of the appellant/petitioner is limited to the condition that has been stipulated by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The writ petition has been disposed of with the following directions: 6. However, having regard to the fact that he has already remitted Rs. 25 Lakhs on 03/02/2004 and also since according to him the appeal itself has been heard on 17/11/2011, I direct that the coercive action now initiated by attachment for recovery of the balance amount due under Ext.P1 order of assessment be stayed on the petitioner remitting a further amount of Rs. 25 Lakhs. It is directed on such remittance, the attachment will stand lifted.

According to the appellant, since he has already remitted an amount of Rs. 25 Lakhs, he is not in a position to raise the balance amount of Rs. 25 Lakhs due to financial constraints. The appeal has already been heard in November 2011. Subsequently, the matter appears to have been heard again in April 2012, but no orders have been passed yet. In the above circumstances, according to the appellant, demands have been made for the entire amount that is due as per Ext.P9. Therefore, the appellant seeks the issue of an order staying the demand till the time, the appeal is finally disposed of.

Advocate Sri. Jose Joseph, who appears for the Revenue, opposes the contentions of the appellant pointing out that the total demand being of an amount of Rs. 1.30 Crores. The amount that has been directed to be deposited is only reasonable, since it works out to only less than 50% of the total amount. For the above reason, it is contended that there is absolutely no justification for reducing the amount that has been directed to be deposited.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned standing counsel for the Revenue. Having given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions advanced before us, we are of the opinion that a reduction in the amount that has been directed to be deposited can be given. It is sufficient that the appellant is directed to pay a further amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs as a condition for keeping in abeyance all further steps to recover the amounts demanded. In the above circumstances, this writ appeal is disposed of directing that all coercive steps to recover the amount demanded from the appellant shall be kept in abeyance on condition that the appellant pays a further amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs towards the disputed amount of income tax within a period of one month. There shall also be a further direction to the 5th respondent to dispose of the appellant''s appeal in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.