Charitable Trust, Subarnapur v. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad & Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 35045 of 2023 Sukanti Educational and ….. Charitable Trust, Subarnapur Vs. ….. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad & Ors. Petitioner Mr. S. Ray, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. K.K. Sahoo, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. R. Chimanika, Sr. Standing Counsel CORAM: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN ORDER 01.11.2023 Order No.This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 1 2. Heard Mr. S. Ray, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. K.K. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R. Chimanika, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the proceedings under Section 226-notice under Annexure-1 issued by opposite party no.3-Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Sambalpur as well as the account statement for the period from 01.08.2023 to 16.10.2023 under Annexure-2, and further to issue direction to opposite party no.1 to dispose of the Stay Application dated 18.03.2020 forthwith and refund of Rs.75,913.99 to the bank account of the petitioner. 4. Mr. S. Ray, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bhubaneswar and also moved an application for stay realization of the disputed demand before the Assessing Authority, which was rejected vide order dated 03.03.2020 by the Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Sambalpur for non-deposit of 20% of the total demand. Thereafter, on 18.03.2020, the petitioner filed a petition praying for consideration of stay of demand before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Hyderabad. It is averred that while said petition is pending, garnishee proceeding under Section 226 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been initiated. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. 5. Mr. R. Chimanika, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department contended that since the petitioner has already moved Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad vide Annexure-8, there is no justification to file this writ petition by the petitioner. 6. Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties but, however, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds that against the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Authority, the petitioner approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bhubaneswar by filing appeal and also moved an application for grant of stay realization of the disputed demand before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Hyderabad, but no action has yet been taken thereon and the Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Sambalpur has initiated garnishee proceeding under Section 226 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In any case, since the petitioner has already moved petition for stay of demand before opposite party no.1-Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad vide Annexure-8, liberty is granted to the petitioner to pursue its remedy before the appropriate forum. 7. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Alok (DR. B.R. SARANGI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally SignedSigned by: ALOK RANJAN SETHYDesignation: SecretaryReason: AuthenticationLocation: ORISSA HIGH COURTDate: 02-Nov-2023 10:31:31