Court directs Petitioner to pay sum, restrains recovery pending appeal. Emphasizes speedy disposal.

The court directed the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rupees Ten Lakhs within eight weeks, restraining the Respondents from initiating recovery proceedings until the appeal against the assessment order is disposed of by the 2nd Respondent. Additionally, the court directed the Petitioner to pay a substantial sum to stay the recovery proceedings pending the appeal and resolved a discrepancy over property ownership and tax assessment by instructing the Petitioner to pay a specific sum. The court emphasized the need for the 2nd Respondent to expedite the appeal's disposal, ultimately disposing of the Writ Petition with the mentioned directions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Direction to dispose of appeal against assessment order
2. Quashing of impugned notice demanding 50% of tax for stay of recovery proceedings
3. Dispute over property ownership and tax assessment

Analysis:

Issue 1: Direction to dispose of appeal against assessment order
The Petitioner sought a direction for the 2nd Respondent to dispose of the appeal against the assessment order. The Petitioner filed an Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2012-13, admitting an income of a specific amount. The property in question had a title dispute, which was settled out of court, leading to subsequent sale deeds. The 1st Respondent demanded tax based on the market value of the property and unexplained investment. The Petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd Respondent and filed a stay petition. The court directed the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rupees Ten Lakhs within eight weeks, restraining the Respondents from initiating recovery proceedings until the appeal is disposed of by the 2nd Respondent.

Issue 2: Quashing of impugned notice demanding 50% of tax for stay of recovery proceedings
The Petitioner challenged the impugned notice dated 29.07.2015, demanding 50% of the tax for staying the recovery proceedings pending the appeal. The Petitioner contended that the addition of a specific amount as unexplained investment was unwarranted, as it had been explained. The court considered the submissions and directed the Petitioner to pay a substantial sum to stay the recovery proceedings until the appeal is resolved.

Issue 3: Dispute over property ownership and tax assessment
There was a discrepancy regarding the property conveyed in the original deed and the sale deed dated 29.12.2011. The Respondents argued that legal ownership vested with the assessee only after the latter sale deed. The Petitioner maintained that the market value mentioned in the sale deed was for record purposes. The court, without delving into the merits of the case, directed the Petitioner to pay a specific sum and restrained the Respondents from initiating recovery proceedings until the appeal is decided by the 2nd Respondent.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the Writ Petition with the mentioned directions, emphasizing the need for the 2nd Respondent to expedite the appeal's disposal.

---