Judgment 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on real estate business. The petitioner firm is assessed on the file of the first respondent herein, under PAN No.AAZFS1507K. For the assessment year 2009-2010, the petitioner firm had filed its return of income, on 30.9.2009, admitting a total income of Rs.1,17,11,560/-. The return was processed, under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, the case had been selected for scrutiny and a notice, under Section 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had been served on 3.9.2010. 3. It has been further stated that the petitioner firm has been following the completed contract method, in respect of its construction business. For the assessment year 20092010, the petitioner had computed that 84% of its construction had been completed and therefore, had filed its return of income on that basis. 4. The balance construction had been completed in the following years and the income thereon had been included in the returns of the subsequent years. Thereafter, the petitioner had included the same for assessment, during the assessment year 20102011, accounting for 96% of the work. The appropriate tax had also been paid. However, the first respondent had held that, since the petitioner had incurred costs to the extent of 91% of the contract, it ought to have considered 91% as the extent of completion of construction and not as 84%. Hence, the first respondent made an addition of 7% of the total sales amounting to Rs.4,28,34,813/-. The first respondent had also made an addition of Rs.75,900/-, being the interest received by the petitioner, which had not been reflected in the return. 5. The first respondent had completed the assessment, on 29.12.2011, assessing the petitioner’s income at Rs.5,46,22,270/- and had raised a demand of Rs.1,94,19,150/-, including an amount of Rs.48,34,432/-, as interest. Such an assessment made by the first respondent, on the face of it, is arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, the petitioner had filed an appeal, on 27.1.2012, before the third respondent, challenging the order of assessment. The petitioner had also prayed for an order of stay of the demand raised by the first respondent, under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the petitioner had filed an appeal, on 27.1.2012, before the third respondent, challenging the order of assessment. The petitioner had also prayed for an order of stay of the demand raised by the first respondent, under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the first respondent had rejected the application made by the petitioner, by his order, dated 20.2.2012. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, a stay petition had been filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax, the second respondent herein, on 29.2.2012. However, the second respondent, without appreciating the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, had rejected the application, by an order, dated 5.3.2012. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of the second respondent, relating to the application made by the petitioner, to stay the order of demand, under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and to quash the impugned order, dated 5.3.2012, rejecting the stay petition. 7. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner would pay a sum of Rs.40,00,000/-, to the first respondent, within the period specified by this Court. He had further prayed that, on such payment being made, the third respondent may be directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner, in respect of the assessment order, dated 29.12.2011, relating to the assessment year 2009-2010. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that if this Court is inclined to grant an order of interim stay of the demand of income tax, made against the petitioner, by way of the assessment order, dated 29.12.2011, relating to the assessment year 2009-2010, it may do so on condition that the petitioner pays 50% of the amount payable by the petitioner. 9. In view of the above, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.40,00,000/-, to the first respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. In view of the above, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.40,00,000/-, to the first respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the said amount, the third respondent shall hear and dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner, in respect of the assessment year 2009-2010, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four months thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.