Ga Infra Private Limited, Plot v. Income Tax Officer Circle 6(2), Ncr Building, Statue Circle,Jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2727/2023 Ga Infra Private Limited, Plot No. 61, Keshav Nagar, HawaSadak, Jaipur Through Its Director, Shri Vinod Kumar Agarwal,S/o Shri Banwari Lal Agarwal, Aged About 56 Years, R/o 60/121,Rajat Path, Mansarover, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer Circle 6(2), NCR Building, Statue Circle,Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gunjan Pathak For Respondent(s): Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Ms. Jaya P. Pathak HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 28/04/2023 This writ petition is directed against the order dated01.02.2023 by which application under Section 220(6) of IncomeTax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the IT Act’) seeking relief against demandhas been rejected by the Assessing Authority vide order dated01.02.2023. Though an appeal has been preferred, learned counsel forthe petitioner would submit that as the Appellate Authority doesnot have any jurisdiction to grant stay of demand, applicationunder 220(6) of IT Act was preferred. Though specific and genuinehardship was stated before the concerned authority, the authorityhas rejected the application without due application of mind,therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking toinvoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of theConstitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the severaldecisions of various Courts. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,submits that against the petitioner a demand of Rs.12,20,43,200/-has been raised. The effect of rejection of the application is thateven in such a case, the petitioner may request to deposit only20% i.e. approximately Rs.2.5 crores and, therefore, it cannot bestated to be a case of undue hardship warranting interference. Learned counsel for the respondent, relying upon ajudgement in the case of Harsh Dipal Shah Vs. Union of India(R/Special Civil Application Nos.19804, 19808 and 19815of 2021) passed by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, would submitthat in any case, it is always open for the petitioner to makeapplication for stay of demand invoking inherent jurisdiction of theAppellate Authority. We find that the petitioner has already preferred an appeal.An application under Section 220(6) of the IT Act has beenrejected by the Assessing Authority finding it to be not a case ofhardship. In order to find whether its a case of hardship, theamount which is ultimately required to be paid upon rejection ofstay, has to be taken into consideration. In the present case, as the impugned order itself shows, thepetitioner in any case would be required to deposit only 20%. Thatcomes to 20% of Rs.12,20,43,200/-. The order clearly says that the petitioner was advised todeposit 20%. Therefore, in these circumstances, we are notinclined to interfere with the order. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. In any case, it will always be open for the petitioner to applyfor stay of demand before the Appellate Authority invoking itsinherent jurisdiction, in view of the statement made by learnedcounsel for the respondent relying upon the judgement of Hon’bleGujarat High Court. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ RAJAT/69