Income Tax Officer vs. Union of India and 2 others

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD WRIT PETITION Nos.28526, 28647, 28653 and 28670 of 2019 WRIT PETITION NO: 28526 OF 2019 Between: lncome Tax Officer, Ward-10 (2), lT Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad AND 1. Union of lndia, Represenled by its Secretary Finance, New Delhi. 2. lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-A, Rep. by its Registrar 3. Sri. Snehil Saraf,43 and 44 Gunrock Enclave, Karkhana, Secunderabad. .,.RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or orders or Writ more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of l\,4andamus declaring lmpugned order in S.A.No.'139/H/2019 in ITA No.1153lHl201B for the A.Y 2013-14 dl.22tO7l2O1g in granting stay contrary to 2nd and 3'd Proviso of Section 254(2A) of the lncome Tax Act, '1961 as illegal, arbitrary, unsustainable and without jurisdiction and to consequently set aside the impugned Order passed by the 2nd respondent/Appellate Tribunal. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order passed by the 2nd respondent/Appellate Tribunal in S.A.No.139lHl2019 in ITA No.1153/H/2018 for the A.Y.2013-14, dated 22.07.2019. WRIT PETITION NO: 28647 OF 2019 Between: lncome Tax Officer, Ward-'l0(2), lT Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad. AND ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER 1. Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary Finance, New Delhi. 2. lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-A Rep. by its Registrar 3. Sri. Snehil Saraf, 43 & 44 Gunrock Enclave, Karkhana, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENTS PRESENT

ll2ll Petition under Afiicle 226 of the Constitution of lndi; praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Corrt rnay be pleased to pass an order or orders or Writ more particularly one in thr, nzrture of a Writ of l/andamus declaring lmpugned order in S.A.No.140/H/2019 in lTl\ No.1154lHl201B for the A.Y 2014-15 dl. 22-07 -2019 in granting stay contrary to 2nd and 3'd Proviso of Section 254(24) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 as illegal, arbitra'y, unsustainable and without jurisdiction and to consequently set aside the impugnec Or,jer passed by the 2nd respo ndent/Ap pe llate Tribunal. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circurrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be p eased to suspend the operation of the order passed by the 2nd respond e nt/Ap pellale Tribunal in SA No. 14O1H12019 in ITA No. 1154lHl2O1B for the A.Y 2014-15 dt. 22-07-2019, as otherwise the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and severe hardship. WRIT PETITION NO: 28653 oF 2019 Between: lncome Tax Officer, M/ard-'l0(2), lT Towers AC Guards, Hyderabad AND 1. Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary Finance, New Delhi. 2. lncome Tax Appel ate Tribunal Hyderabad Bench-A, Rep. t y its Registrar. 3. Smt.Sonali lt4odi Saraf, 43 and 44 Gunrock Enclave, Karkh rna Secunderabad .RESPONOENTS Petition under Adicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in lhe affidavit filed therewith, the High Co rrt rnay be pleased to pass an order or orlers or Writ more particularly one in lhe nature of a Writ of [\,4andamus declaring lmpugned order in SA No.141lH/20'19 in lTl, No.1155/H/2018 for the A.Y 2014-15 dt.2210712019 in granting stay contrary to 2rd and 3rd Proviso of Section 254(2A) of the income Tax Act, 1961 as illegal, arbitra y, unsustainable and without jurisdiction arrd to consequently set aside the impugned Order passed by the 2nd respondent/Appellate Tribunal. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Ser;tion '1 51 CPC praying that in the circunrstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppc,rt of the petition, the High Court may be pl :asr-.d to suspend the operation of the orcler passed by the 2nd respondent/Appe llate Tribunal in SA No.1411H12019 in llA No.1155lHl201B for the A.Y 2014-11 dl. 2210712019. as otherwise the petitioner r,vill be put to irreparable loss and sever€ hardship. ...PEI'ITIONER

il3il WRIT PETITION NO: 28670 OF 2019 Between: lncome Tax Officer, Ward-10(2), lT Towers AC Guards, Hyderabad. AND '1 . Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary Finance, New Delhi. 2. lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad Bench-A, Rep. by its Registrar 3. Sri. Kushaal Saraf, 43 and 44 Gunrock Enclave, Karkhana, ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or orders or Writ more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring lmpugned order in SA No.142lH/2019 in ITA No.1 157/H/2018 for the A.Y 2014-15 d|.22-07-2019 in granting stay contrary to 2nd and 3rd Proviso of Section 254(2A) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 as illegal, arbitrary, unsustainable and without jurisdiction and to consequently set aside the impugned Order passed by the 2nd respondent /Appellate Tribunal. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order passed by the 2nd respond ent/Appellate Tribunal in SA No. 1421H12019 in ITA No.1157lHl201B for the AY 2014-15 dt. 22-07-2019, as otherwise the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and severe hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner in all W.Ps.: SRl. K. RAJI REDDY (SENIOR S.C. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in all W.Ps.: SRl. NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.3 in all W.Ps.: SRI K. VASANTH KUMAR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER ...PETITIONER

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUS?ICE T.AMARNATII GOUD WP.No.s 2t!526,24647 , 24653 and 2867O ,tf 2l0l9 COMMON ORDETI: 1. These Writ Petitions are filed by differe rt petitioners assailing a Cororron Order dt.22.O7.2019 passed rv lhe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench A', gr rntLng stay of recovery of outstanding demand on condition of the assessee paying IOok of tht: outstanding demand on or befcre 31.08.2019 on the ground that the appeai, in which the sz id demand is impugned, is not ,.et disposed of 2. Petitioner in these writ petitions is income Tarc Department, which contendr; that the Income Tax Appellate Tr bunal has no jurisdiction to pass the said order extending the period of stay beyond the period of i80 days specified in 2"a and 3.d proviso of Section 254(2A' 3. Counsel 1br the respondents, who are benelicia.ries of the order passed by tle Tribunal, however contended th at the stay granted on 22.07.2O 19 in the impugned order b1 tLLe Tribunal expired on the exoiry of 180 days i.e., on 77.O1.2(t2O itself, that there is no necrrssity to determine the correctness c f said issue at this point of tir1e, because there is no subsisting s.a1, of recovery of disputed denrar:d. 4. We are in agreement with the contention of tee counsel for the respondentr;.

2 6. Accordingly, all these Writ Petitions are dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. 7. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any, in all the Writ Petitions, sha1l stand closed. SD/.CH.VENKATESWARU LU ASSISTANT REGIS R ,TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J 4 CHR JM . One . One . Two CC (- (- UU CD One to Sri K. Raji Reddy, Senior S.C. for lncome Tax Deoartment tOpUCl to Sri. Namavarapu. Rajeshwar Rao, Assistant Solicit,or Generil topUbl to Sri. K. Vasanth Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] Copies 5. Since, admittedly, the stay was initially granted pending the appeals on 28.11.2018, and within the period of 180 days, a fresh application was moved, which was ordered on 22.07.2019, and the impugned order is passed extending the period of stay up to 17 .Ol,2O2O, and even the said period has now expired and there is no subsisting stay of recovery of outstanding demand, we are of the opinion that these Writ Petitions have become infructuous and it is not necessary to determine the legal issue being canvassed by the Department in these Writ Petitions.

HIGH COURT DATED:1110312'.020 COMMON ORDE R WRIT PETITION Nos.28526, 28647, 28653 and 28670 of 2019 DISMISSING I'HE WRIT PETITIONS AS INFRUCTLIOUS WITHOUT COSTS ffi AI{: 12 ilAI 2020 c / ,,'/ {-D.::^'-rr rt'"-'1. -i-..-..---1/ LD)P, q