THE KALIDAS URBAN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

W.P.NO.146511/2020 (T-IT) BETWEEN :

THE KALIDAS URBAN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, BELAGAVI, NO.3935, OULKAR BUILDING, COLLEGE ROAD, KALI AMBRAI BELAGAVI, BY ITS SECRETARY, AJITH S/O MARUTI HIPPARGI, AGED 35 YEARS. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADV.)

AND :

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.6, HUBLI-590001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADV.)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO.ITBA/AST/S/144/2019-20/1022361870(1) DATED 15.12.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 VIDE ANNEXURE-C ISSUED BY RESPONDENT INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6, BELAGAVI. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A., THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

2 : ORDER :

The captioned writ petition is filed challenging the assessment order passed by the respondent as per Annexure-C. 2. The short point that would arise for consideration in the present writ petition is, whether the present writ petition challenging the assessment order passed by the respondent as per Annexure-C to the writ petition is maintainable 3. It is stated across the bar that, the impugned assessment order passed by the respondent is already challenged in an appeal. Further the present petitioner has also filed an application before the respondent/ Assessing Authority seeking stay of the said order. In this background, I am of the view that the present writ petition challenging the assessment order, which is already pending before the Appellate Court is not maintainable. 4. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit to this Court that, the

3 respondent-Assessing Authority has not passed orders on the stay application, which is produced at Annexure- F to the writ petition. He would also submit to this Court that, this Court has granted interim order directing the respondent not to take coercive steps. 5. In the light of the submission made by the respective counsels, I am of the view that, this writ petition does not survive for consideration, since the petitioner has availed remedies available to him under the Act. 6. However I would find some force in his submission that, till his stay application as per Annexure-F is considered by respondent-Assessing Authority in accordance with law, he is entitled for protection. 7. The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent-Assessing Authority to pass appropriate orders on the stay application filed by the petitioner. This exercise shall be done within a period of eight

4 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 8. Till respondent-Assessing Authority decides the stay application, it is made cl ear that no coercive steps shall be taken by respondent-Assessing Authority. With these observations, writ petition is disposed off.

Sd/- JUDGE EM/-