BADAGABETTU CREDIT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

PDF · subscribers
WP/13639/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC01030273202201 September 2022Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Assessing Authority to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's application to keep the demand in abeyance. Until such orders are passed, the respondents were restrained from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, a credit cooperative society, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an assessment order and stay the demand notice. The petitioner had also filed an appeal and an application to keep the demand in abeyance pending the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Authority should consider the petitioner's application for keeping the demand in abeyance pending appeal. Whether coercive steps should be stayed until the application is decided.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 220(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 01st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.13639 OF 2022 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

BADAGABETTU CREDIT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD H. O "CHETHANA BUILDING, MISSION COMPOUND, UDUPI-576101 REP BY MR RAJESH, GENERAL MANAGER I/C REGD UNDER KCS ACT 1959.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI.MAHESH R UPPIN., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, ROOM NO.356, C R BUILDING, I P ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

2.

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 ALBUQUERQUE HOUSE, OPP FORUM MALL, PANDESHWARA, MANGALURU - 575 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.03.2022 IN ORDER NO.ITBA/AST/M/143(3)/2021-22/1042191306(1) PASSED BY THE R2 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE.

2 THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: “[a] Quash the Assessment Order dt: 30.03.2022 passed in Order No.ITBA/AST/M/143[3]/2021- 22/1042191306[1] passed by the 2nd respondent marked as ANNEXURE-A by issuing a writ in the nature of Certiorari;

OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE

Stay the operation of the demand notice dt. 30.03.2022 passed by the second respondent marked as ANNEXURE-B bearing PAN No.AAAAB3065F pending disposal of appeal filed by the petitioner marked as ANNEXURE-C dt. 25.04.2022 bearing PAN No.AAAAB3065F;

[b] issue a writ in the nature of mandamus by directing the 1st respondent to dispose off the appeal ANNEXURE-C filed by the petitioner Dt. 25.4.2022 bearing PAN No.AAAAB3065F within a period of two months; and

[c] grant such other reliefs as may be deemed fit to grant under the circumstances of the case in the interest of equity and justice."

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3.

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the reassessment order dated 30.03.2022 passed by the respondent No.2-Assessing Authority under Section 143[3] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, 'the IT Act'], the petitioner has filed an appeal in Form No.35 along with the application for Stay on 25.04.2022. In addition thereto, the petitioner has also filed application before the respondent No.2-Assessing Authority under Section 220[6] of the IT Act requesting the respondent No.2 to keep the demand in abeyance pending disposal of the appeal.

4.

It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the petitioner taking necessary steps by preferring an appeal as well as by invoking Section 220[6] of the IT Act

4 and requesting the respondent No.2 to keep the demand in abeyance, neither the respondent No.1 or the respondent No.2 are considering the request made by the petitioner nor the request for interim prayer sought for by the petitioner and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition, particularly, when the respondent No.2 has issued a Notice dated 23.05.2022 calling upon the petitioner to pay 20% of the demand amount.

5.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6.

Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims in the present petition, in the appeal before the respondent No.1- Appellate Authority and also in application at Annexure-E filed by the petitioner before the respondent No.2 under Section 220[6] of the IT Act, without expressing any opinion on the merits/de-merits of the rival contentions keeping the same open, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing the respondent No.2 to consider and

5 pass appropriate orders on the application/representation/request dated 25.04.2022 at Annexure-E submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law and at any rate within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7.

It is further directed that till the respondent No.2 considers and passes appropriate orders on the aforesaid representation dated 25.04.2022 at Annexure-E submitted by the petitioner referred to supra, the respondents shall not take any precipitative/coercive steps against the petitioner pursuant to Annexures-A and F dated dated 30.03.2022 and 23.05.2022 respectively.

Subject to the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed off.

SD/- JUDGE

AN/-

More judgments on Section 220(6)

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 220(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →