M/S. SAI PRASAD PROPERTIES LTD. THR. ITS DIRECTOR SHRI BALASAHEB KESHAVRAO BHAPKAR. vs. THE DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX, THR. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND 2 ORS.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the appeal before it did not deserve consideration. The appellant's counsel was fair in contending that the appeal should not be pressed and be disposed of. Consequently, the appeal was not entertained and was dismissed as not pressed. The ITAT's order remanding the matter back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration was noted to have attained finality. The Court clarified that it had not dealt with the merits of the contentions raised by the parties. In light of the ITAT's remand and the quantified penalty of Rs. 20 crores by the CIT(A), the Court directed the appellant to deposit an additional sum of Rs. 5 crores with the Revenue within eight weeks as a pre-condition for protection during the pendency of the appeal before the CIT(A). Upon this deposit, the Revenue was restrained from coercive recovery measures. The attachment of the appellant's properties by the Revenue was ordered to continue until the disposal of the appeal.
What were the facts?
The appellant, M/s. Sai Prasad Properties Ltd., is challenging an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) that remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) for reconsideration. The High Court of Bombay at Goa heard the appeal. The appellant's counsel stated that they did not press the appeal. The High Court noted that the ITAT's remand order had attained finality due to the disposal of this appeal. The Court clarified it had not dealt with the merits of the contentions. The Court also referred to a previous order by a Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 200/2014, which had granted interim protection against recovery of Rs. 7,44,74,656/- by the Revenue until the disposal of the appeal before the ITAT. The CIT(A) had quantified the penalty to be recovered at Rs. 20 crores.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal filed before the High Court deserves consideration, given the ITAT's order of remand. Assessee's contention: The assessee's counsel stated that they did not press the appeal and requested it be disposed of. The assessee relied on the protection granted by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 200/2014, which was continued during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the appeal before the High Court. However, the revenue had previously recovered Rs. 7,44,74,656/- and had attached properties of the appellant.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2014 M/S. SAI PRASAD PROPERTIES LTD. THR. ITS DIRECTOR SHRI BALASAHEB KESHAVRAO BHAPKAR. ... Appellant Versus THE DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX, THR. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND 2 ORS. ... Respondent Mr. Vilas P. Thali, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Asha A. Desai, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 3. Coram:- R. M. BORDE & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 11th November, 2014 P.C. The appellant is taking exception to the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji Goa, directing remand of matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) for its reconsideration.
After hearing the parties for quite some time and on consideration of the observation made in paragraph 2.4 of the Appellate Tribunal, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal does not deserve consideration.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant is also fair in contending that he does not press the appeal and the same be 2 TXA/68/2014 disposed of.
In this view of the matter, the appeal is not entertained and, as such, stands dismissed as not pressed. No order as to costs.
The Tribunal has directed remand of the matter back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration and the said order has attained finality in view of the disposal of this appeal.
It is clarified that this Court has not dealt with the merit of the contentions raised by the parties and it would be open for the parties to raise all the contentions before CIT(A).
Our attention has been invited by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 200/2014. The petition was presented seeking interim protection during the pendency of the appeal preferred before CIT(A) by the appellant herein. Learned Single Judge, while dealing with the Writ petition, has observed that since an amount of Rs.7,44,74,656/- has already been recovered by the Revenue, the Assessing Officer/ Recovery Officer shall not proceed to enforce the recovery of the amount until disposal of the appeal. The protection granted by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid Writ Petition was continued during the pendency of the appeal before Appellate Tribunal.
3 TXA/68/2014
In this view of the matter and considering the fact that the CIT(A) has quantified the amount to be recovered from the appellant towards penalty at Rs. 20 crores, we deem it appropriate to direct the appellant to further deposit a sum of Rs.5 crores as a pre-condition for grant of protection during the pendency of the appeal before CIT(A). The appellant, as such, is directed to deposit Rs. 5 crores with the Revenue within a period of eight weeks from today. On the condition of deposit of the amount as directed above, Revenue shall not apply coercive means for effecting recovery of the amount during the pendency and disposal of the appeal before CIT(A). It has also been pointed out that the properties owned by the appellant have already been attached by Revenue and that the appellant has been restrained from creating third party interest in relation to said properties or develop the same, under the orders issued by SEBI.
Order of attachment effected by the Revenue shall continue until the disposal of the appeal and subject thereto. F. M. REIS, J. R. M. BORDE, J. vn
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Jsw Cement Limited,Jajpur vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sreeshobi Enterprises vs. The Appellate AuthorityMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- S.T.Promotors vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
