Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
W.P.16909/13 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO. 16909 OF 2013 (T-IT)
BETWEEN:
SURAYANARAYANA DEVARAJ PANDE PAN : ABLPP7024R AGE 53 YEARS OCCUPATION BUSINESS ADDRESS : No. 605, PUSHPANJALI 2ND C CROSS, 7TH MAIN, 3RD STAGE 3RD BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 079. … PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANOJ DEVINDER PUKALE, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(3)
3RD FLOOR, JEEVAN SAMIPGE
No.1/1, SAMPIGE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 003.
2 THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
RANGE 8, 3RD FLOOR, JEEVAN SAMPIGE
No.1/1, SAMPIGE ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 003.
3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(APPEALS) – V BANGALORE
R No. 314, 3RD FLOOR HMT BHAVAN
59 BELLARY ROAD
GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 032.
W.P.16909/13 2
4 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
IV BANGALORE, R No. A 123
CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING
No.1, QUEENS ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001. … RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE INTERIM ORDER DT. 15.03.2013 PASSED BY R-3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V BANGALORE IN ANN-H; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRL.HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner aggrieved by the orders dt. 15.3.2013 Annexure-H and dt.25.3.2013 Annexure-J in ITA 969/W-8(3)/CIT(A)-V/2011-12 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-V, Bangalore, has presented this petition.
Petitioners aggrieved by the demands raised for the assessment years passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act and the demand for payment of Rs.1,56,10,860/- as tax for the assessment year 2009- 10 preferred appeal on 24.1.2012 along with an
W.P.16909/13 3 application for stay of the order of assessment and demand until the application was considered and orders passed. However, proceedings in the matter of demand and non-consideration of stay leading to writ petitions filed before this Court for issue of directions are not germane to the decision making in this petition and therefore, no reference is made to them.
Pursuant to a direction of this court the Appellate Authority heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner both on IA as well as the appeal on merits and passed the order impugned on the interim application for stay directing payment of 50% of the outstanding demand till the disposal of the appeal which order was clarified in the corrigendum Annexure- J directing the petitioner to pay 50% of the outstanding demand within two days from the date of issue of the order.
W.P.16909/13 4
The appellate authority having exercised its discretion, judiciously, as can be noticed from the contents of the order Annexure-H, making reference to several material facts and reasons over prima facie case being made out by the revenue, it cannot be said that the exercise of discretion is either illegal or arbitrary so as to call for interference at the hands of this court, in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In my considered opinion, petition being without merit is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE