KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION LTD AND ORS vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court found that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax – III, Pune, dated March 24, 2010, lacked even a prima facie evaluation of the merits of the assessee's submissions for the grant of stay. Furthermore, the premise that the assessee had not deposited any amount towards the tax demand was found to be incorrect, as the assessee had deposited a total of Rs. 2 crores, with Rs. 50,00,000 paid on March 12, 2010, and Rs. 1.5 crores on March 26, 2010. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order dated March 24, 2010, and directed the Commissioner of Income Tax – III, Pune, to reconsider the stay application after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The Court clarified that all rival contentions of the parties were left open for the Commissioner's consideration. Until the disposal of the stay application, the respondents were restrained from adopting coercive proceedings against the petitioners concerning the disputed demand. The assessee was directed to appear before the Commissioner on April 19, 2010, and the Commissioner was directed to dispose of the application within three weeks thereafter.
What were the facts?
The petitioners, Kumar Housing Corporation Limited and another, challenged an order dated February 8, 2010, passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 6, Pune, which rejected their application for a stay against a tax demand for assessment year 2007-2008. Subsequently, the assessee was asked to pay the demand immediately, and their bank accounts were attached under Section 226(3). The High Court was informed that the Commissioner of Income Tax had disposed of the stay application on March 24, 2010, but a copy of this order was not initially provided to the petitioners. The petitioners amended their petition to challenge this order. The Revenue later informed the Court that the attached bank accounts were released.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax erred in rejecting the stay application by proceeding on the erroneous premise that no payment had been made by the assessee by March 31, 2010, when the assessee had made substantial payments? 2. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax failed to prima facie evaluate the merits of the stay application, particularly concerning the denial of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii) for assessment year 2007-2008, despite granting it for the previous year? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the impugned order was based on an incorrect assumption that no payment was made. They submitted that Rs. 50,00,000 was paid on March 12, 2010, and an additional Rs. 1.5 crores was paid on March 26, 2010. They also contended that the Commissioner failed to conduct a prima facie evaluation of the merits of the stay application, specifically regarding the denial of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii) for the current assessment year, which was granted for the preceding year for the same project. Revenue's contentions: No specific contentions for the Revenue are recorded in the judgment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2723 OF 2010 Kumar Housing Corporation Limited & Another ..Petitioners. Versus Additional Commissioner of Income Tax & Others ..Respondents. Mr.Rafique A. Dada, Senior Advocate with Mr.Jitendra Jain and Ms.Ferzana Z. Behramkamdin and Ms.Swati Deshpande i/by FZB & Associates for the petitioners. Ms.Anamika Malhotra for the respondents. CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. DATE : 12th April 2010. P.C. : 1. When the petition was instituted before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, there was a challenge to the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 6, Pune on 8 February 2010 by which an application for stay against the demand for assessment year 20072008 was rejected. Consequent upon that, by a communication dated 24 February 2010, the assessee was called upon to pay the demand immediately. Simultaneously, all the bank accounts of the assessee were
attached. When the petition was mentioned before the Court for urgent orders with notice to the respondents on 1 April 2010, an attachment was levied under Section 226(3). At that stage, Counsel for the Revenue placed on record the instructions received from the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 6, Pune on 1 April 2010 addressed to the Senior Standing Counsel stating that all the bank accounts of the petitioners which were attached stand released and that release letters have been faxed to the concerned banks. The petition was directed to be placed on board for admission on 8 April 2010. Since the Court was informed that an order had been passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax – III, Pune disposing of the stay application on 24 March 2010, the respondents were directed to make available a copy of that order to the petitioners. Until the directions as aforesaid were issued by the Court, a copy of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax had not been made available to the petitioners. Subsequent to the order of this Court dated 1 April 2010, the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax – III, Pune dated 24 March 2010 has been placed on record and a formal challenge to the said order has been incorporated in the petition. 2. The grievance of the assessee, as placed in the submissions by the learned Senior Counsel before the Court, is that the impugned order proceeds on an erroneous premise that though the assessee had assured to make some payment by 31 March 2010, no payment had been made. Counsel on behalf of the assessee submitted, while adverting to ground (J) of
the petition as amended, that an amount of Rs.50,00,000/ was paid on 12 March 2010 and on 26 March 2010, an additional amount of Rs.1.5 crores was also paid. The payment of Rs.1.5 crores was admittedly after the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax. Moreover, it is submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to evaluate prima facie, the merits of the application for stay. In this regard, it has been submitted that for the previous year, assessment year 20062007, the assessee was granted the benefit of a deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii) whereas in respect of the same project, a deduction has been declined for the present assessment year. 3. Reading the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax – III, Pune as it stands, it is evident that there is not even a prima facie evaluation of the merits of the submissions which have been urged on behalf of the assessee for grant of stay. That apart, the premise that the assessee has not deposited any amount at all towards the demand of tax does not appear to be correct. The assessee, the Court is informed, has already deposited an amount of Rs.2 crores of which an amount of Rs.50,00,000/ was paid on 12 March 2010 while the balance amount of Rs.1.5 crores was deposited on 26 March 2010. 4. In these circumstances, we consider it appropriate to direct the Commissioner of Income Tax – III, Pune to reconsider the application for stay and to pass a fresh order after furnishing to the assessee an opportunity of being heard. In order to facilitate this exercise, the impugned order dated 24
March 2010 is set aside. We however clarify that we keep all the rival contentions of the parties open to be considered by the Commissioner of Income Tax. Until the disposal of the application for stay, the respondents shall not adopt any coercive proceedings against the petitioners in respect of the demand which forms the subject matter of the application for stay. 5. The assessee shall appear before the Commissioner of Income Tax – III, Pune on 19 April 2010. The Commissioner of Income Tax is directed to dispose of the application for stay within a period of three weeks thereafter. 6. The petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)
More judgments on Section 226(3)
- Thoti Sankaraiah, Chittoor vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, ChittoorITA 2094/HYD/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs Giridhari Homes Private Limited, HyderabadITA 92/HYD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs Giridhari Homes Private Limited, HyderabadITA 91/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Giridhari Homes Private Limited… vs ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2066/HYD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Giridhari Homes Private Limited… vs ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2065/HYD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Amritsar Haveli Cuisines Private Limited & Anr. vs. Amarbir Singh & Ors.Delhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Abd Maestro Private Limited vs. Great Galleon Ventures LTDDelhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Jangeer Singh Trading As Jangeer Singh Kabulshah Agriculture Works vs. Yogesh Jangid Trading As Jangid Agro Engineering & Anr.Delhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Rabindranath Behera vs. The Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Dinesh Dash vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 3 Nov 2026