Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: HONBLE SECRETARY, SHRI A.V.S. MURTHY.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.23766/2021 (T-IT) BETWEEN: RASHTREEYA SIKSHANA SAMITHI TRUST PAN: AAATR0758A HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: RV TEACHERS COLLEGE BUILDING 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 011 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS HON'BLE SECRETARY, SHRI A.V.S. MURTHY.
… PETITIONER (BY SRI SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,
EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1,
BANGALORE
UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE,
MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,
(EXEMPTIONS),
BANGALORE
UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE,
MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
2 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(EXEMPTIONS),
BANGALORE
ROOM NO.606, 6TH FLOOR,
UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE,
P. KALINGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED LETTER DATED 18.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE R-1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for issuance of appropriate writ to quash the impugned letter dated 18.11.2021 issued by the first respondent for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 at Annexure-A and similarly, has sought for quashing of the impugned letter dated 10.12.2021 issued by the same respondent for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 at Annexure-B and has further sought for restraining the first respondent from recovering or initiating any proceedings for recovery of demand of tax and interests arising from the Assessment Order 20.12.2017 (as rectified) for the year
3 Assessment Year 2015-2016 which remains unpaid. Certain other reliefs are also sought for.
The petitioner submits that the Assessment Order was passed and subsequently the same came to be rectified raising the demand against the petitioner. The petitioner has filed an appeal. It is submitted that the petitioner had sought for stay before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer as per the order dated 19.07.2018 had granted stay of collection of demand, subject to payment of 20% of total disputed demand. It was further provided that stay of collection of demand was granted as per CBDT's Instruction No.1914 in O.M. No.404/93-ITCC dated 22.02.2016 read with modification dated 31.07.2017 (as referred at Annexure-E), till the disposal of the first appeal or upto six months whichever is earlier. It is submitted that the appeal is still pending consideration and is not disposed off.
In the interregnum, notice of demand has been issued as per the impugned communication at Annexure-B.
4 It was stipulated that the stay of collection of demand that was granted as per the order dated 19.07.2018 was only for a period of six months or till the disposal of appeal, whichever is earlier and since stay granted had lapsed on 18.01.2019, the petitioner was required to make good the balance outstanding for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 within ten days.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of stay ought to have been extended when the appeal was not concluded. He relies upon the Office Memorandum at Annexure-P dated 29.02.2016 and submits that after expiry of reasonable period, the Authority had right to review the order passed.
It is further submitted that as the appeal was not disposed off, the order of stay ought to have been extended, as it was in no way responsible for the delay in disposal of the appeal.
Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that that it was open for the petitioner to have sought for extension of the stay.
Heard both sides.
In light of the admitted facts and noticing that the order of stay was subject to condition regarding payment of 20% of the outstanding demand which has been specified and as the appeal still remained to be concluded without entering into the technicalities and as the petitioner's eligibility for order of stay has already been determined as per the communication at Annexure-'C', it would be in the interests of justice to extend the said order of stay till disposal of the appeal.
Accordingly, the impugned communication at Annexure-B is set aside. It is however clarified that the delay in disposal of appeal if attributable to the conduct of the petitioner, in such event, the Authority is at liberty to reconsider the order of stay.
Subject to the above observations, the petition is disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE VGR