Cw/12274/2015 Of M/S. Jindal Prime Food Pvt. Ltd v. Income Tax Officer, Bikaner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANAT JODHPUR :: ORDER:: S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.12274/2015M/s. Jindal Prime Food Private Limited V/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1) Date of Order :::: 28.10.2015 P R E S E N T HONBLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA ' Mr. Lokesh Mathur, for the petitioner. Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat, for the respondent-Department. BY THE COURT: - - Issue notice. Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat, standing counsel for the Income-tax Department, accepts notice on behalf ofthe respondents. Therefore, service is complete. The petitioner-assessee has laid this writpetition imploring annulment of impugned order dated6[th] of October, 2015 (Annex.4) passed by Income-taxOfficer, Ward-2(1), Bikaner (AO). By the order, the AO has turned down therequest of the assessee under subs-section (6) ofSection 20 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'Actof 1961'). The undisputed facts are that the petitionerhas submitted his return for the Assessment Year 2012-13 showing his gross income NIL. The AO while makingthe assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961has made huge additions and ultimately assessed theincome of the petitioner-assessee for a sum ofRs.1,35,00,000/-. Being aggrieved from the said assessmentorder, the petitioner has laid an appeal before theCommissioner Income Tax Appeals, Bikaner underSection 246-A of the Act of 1961 and the said appeal isstill pending consideration. The grievance of the petitioner is that duringthe pendency of the appeal, the AO has proceeded totake coercive action against the petitioner-assessee forrecovery of the tax as per the assessment order. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. LokeshMathur has urged that the only remedy available to theassessee in these circumstances was to approach the AOunder sub-section (6) of Section 220 of the Act of 1961 but the said attempt made by the petitioner has provedto be abortive and the prayer has been declined. Mr.Mathur has, therefore, urged that looking to the hugedemand of tax, some indulgence may be granted to thepetitioner-assessee during the pendency of the appealelse the whole purpose of appeal would be frustrated. Mr. Kumbhat, learned standing counsel forthe Income-tax Department, has submitted that intaxing and fiscal statutes, the courts are normallyreluctant to pass interim orders and therefore, it is notdesirable to grant indulgence to the petitioner-assessee.However, Mr. Kumbhat submits that it may be in thefintess of things to direct the Appellate Authority toexpedite hearing of the appeal. Considering the submissions at bar and thepeculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, inmy opinion, this petition can be conveniently disposed ofwith a direction to the appellate authority to hear anddecide the appeal preferred by the petitioner underSection 246-A of the Act of 1961 as expeditiously aspossible, preferably within a period of 90 days fromtoday. It is further directed that during the pendency ofthe appeal, the AO may not take any coercive action against the petitioner-assessee, pursuant to the assessment order dated 31.03.2015. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (P.K. LOHRA), J. a.asopa/-