JUDGMENT
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.
1. The petitioner was a partner with one Samrathmal Phoolchand Seth, carrying on business of builders in the name of M/s. Empire Investment Corporation. The petitioner retired from the partnership on 8th April, 1974. After retirement of the petitioner from the firm, the ITO assessing the firm assessed the firm for asst. yrs. 1973-74 and 1975-76. The petitioner contends that he was not given any notice and was unaware of these assessment proceedings which all took place after he retired from the firm.
2. On 19th December, 1986 the petitioner received these notices of demand as a defaulter which were issued by the 1st respondent. The particulars of these notices are set out in paragraph 4 of the petition. They are the subject-matter of challenge before us in this writ petition.
3. The petitioner has now filed an affidavit dt. 27th August, 1992 in which the petitioner has annexed as Exhibit ‘A’, a statement showing his present tax liability, as per those notices of demand and as a result of appeals which were filed by the petitioner in respect of assessment for these assessment year. As set out in Exhibit’A’ the total liability of the petitioner as a result of the orders which have been passed by the income tax authorities as of now, stands reduced to Rs. 5,84,389. As against this, the respondents have collected taxes to the tune of Rs. 5,61,619 as set out in the additional affidavit filed by the TRO, dt. 9th September, 1988 in Appeal No. 1028 of 1988, in the present writ petition at the stage of appeal from a notice of motion taken out therein. As per this affidavit the total amount recovered from the other partner is Rs. 5,61,619.44. The balance amount now payable is, therefore, Rs. 22,770. The appeals of the petitioner in respect of the asst. yrs. 1973-74 and 1975-76 are pending before the Tribunal.
4. During the pendency of the appeals, the petitioner is willing to pay the above amount of Rs. 22,770, subject, of course, to the outcome of the appeals filed by them before the Tribunal.
5. In a Notice of Motion No. 2395 of 1988 for interim reliefs in this writ petition, the learned single Judge had originally granted unconditional stay. The respondents have filed Appeal No. 1028 in respect of this interim order.
In the appeal the stay has been continued on the petitioner’s furnishing a bank guarantee in a sum of Rs. 1,90,000. This bank guarantee has been furnished by the petitioner. In the premises we pass the following order :
The petitioner do pay to the TRO a sum of Rs. 22,770 on or before 7th September, 1992. On such payment being made, the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner in Appeal No. 1028 of 1988 is stand discharged.
Rule is made absolute in prayer (a). It will, of course, be open to the respondents to issue fresh notices of demand, if an occasion so arise, after the disposal of the appeals pending before the Tribunal or at any time in accordance with law.
6. In the circumstances no order as to costs.