APHC010073222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN THE HONOURABLE SRI WRIT PETITION NO: 3834/2025 Between: Nambu Jyothi Union Of India and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI 2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 3834/2025 AND Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S): ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3516] THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 HBKM,J & HVN,J W.P.No.3834 of 2025 The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Krishna Mohan) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 5. 2. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the order passed by the 2nd respondent on the application for stay of collection of disputed demand for the assessment year 2019-2020 dated 31.01.2025 directing the assessee to pay 5% of the outstanding demand of Rs.3,43,07,616/- in three installments by paying Rs.17,15,400/- in three installments as under: 1. Rs.5,71,800/- on or before 15.02.2025 2. Rs.5,71,800/- on or before 15.03.2025 3. Rs.5,71,800/- on or before 15.04.2025 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a wrong assessment made by the assessing authority for the assessment year 2019-2020 in respect of the petitioner is concerned and accordingly arrived at the outstanding demand of Rs.3,43,07,616/-. It is the case of the petitioner that the assessee case for the assessment year 2019-2020 was re-opened on the basis of the alleged information that the assessee had carried out transactions towards purchase of immovable property to the tune of Rs.1,77,71,000/-, and deposited the cash amount in bank accounts 3 HBKM,J & HVN,J W.P.No.3834 of 2025 to the tune of Rs.22,41,500/- and interest income was received Rs.1,89,304/- during the financial year 2018-2019 relevant to the assessment year 2019-2020 and the contention of the respondent/department is that the petitioner did not file return of income for the said year under consideration. 4. But, it is the case of the assessee that the purchase document given by her is only in the capacity of ‘authorized representative’ of her son one Sri Srikanth, who is a NRI. The sources of investment are from the housing loan of the HDFC Bank and withdrawals made from the NRO and NRE accounts of Mr. Srikanth. As regards cash deposits, the assessee substantiated that these are from out of the withdrawals made from her son’s account on which the assessee is having letter of authority for operation. But, without considering the facts submitted by the petitioner the assessing officer concerned passed an erroneous assessment order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the appeal before the 3rd respondent and the same is pending for consideration. Pending consideration of the said appeal, the petitioner sought stay of the demand by filing appropriate application before the 2nd respondent furnishing the details of the transaction in a tabular form also. But, ignoring the same, relying upon the report of the Assessing Officer and the Range Head, the 2nd respondent 4 HBKM,J & HVN,J W.P.No.3834 of 2025 passed the above said impugned order to pay 5% of the outstanding demand in three installments as stated above. The assessee also has given her financial position by furnishing the bank accounts and compliance shown therein. Without considering and appreciating the above said transactions of the petitioner in her bank accounts for purchasing the property involved in favour of her son and without considering the details furnished in the stay application by the 2nd respondent, the above said impugned order has been passed by the 2nd respondent. 5. On the other hand, the respondent Nos.2 to 5 submits that when the assessee seeks for stay of the demand under the assessment as per the rules they have to deposit 20% of the outstanding demand for consideration of the appeal. But, in this case, the 2nd respondent by virtue of the impugned order only insisted to pay 5% of the outstanding amount that too within three installments. 6. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, and upon consideration of the above said assessment, as the impugned order on the stay application passed by the 2nd respondent dated 31.01.2025 is mainly based upon the reports of the Assessing Officer & the Range Head and debtor particulars furnished by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent in her stay application dated 5 HBKM,J & HVN,J W.P.No.3834 of 2025 22.05.2024, this Court deems it fit to direct the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order, without insisting the payment under the impugned order of the 2nd respondent herein. It is needless to mention that the appeal shall be decided on its own merits. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN ________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY 25.02.2025 MDP