SURAYANARAYANA DEVARAJ PANDE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(3)

PDF · subscribers
WP/16909/2013HC KarnatakaKAHC01019872201322 April 2013Bench: RAM MOHAN REDDY4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appellate authority exercised its discretion judiciously in directing payment of 50% of the demand. The court found no illegality or arbitrariness in the exercise of this discretion.

What were the facts?

The petitioner filed an appeal against assessment orders and a demand for tax. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directed the petitioner to pay 50% of the outstanding demand as a condition for stay pending appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the appellate authority's order directing payment of 50% of the demand as a condition for stay was arbitrary or illegal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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.

2.

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.

3.

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

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →