Iby Sri. Prashanth Shivadass, Adv., For:sri. Aditya v. Bhat, Adv

IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATBD THIS THER 1 DAY OF APRIL, 2018| BEFORE: THR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICK S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.13599/2017 (T IT) BETWEEN: GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITEDNO.3, RMZ INFINITY,TOWER E, 4[‘L]FLOOR, ~OLD MADRAS ROAD,BANGALORE-560 016,RBEPRBESEBENITBD HBRBIN BY SENIOR CORPORATE COUNSELMR. THIRUMALBSH GANGAPPA. ... PRETITIONBR IBY SRI. PRASHANTH SHIVADASS, ADV., FOR:SRI. ADITYA V. BHAT, ADV.| AND: 1.THERE DEPUTLY COMMISSIONEOF INCOME TAX.CIRCLE 3 (1) (2),ROOM NO.228, 2 FLOOR,BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, ©KORAMANGALA,BANGALORE-560 095.OF INCOME TAX.CIRCLE 3 (1) (2),ROOM NO.228, 2 FLOOR,BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, ©KORAMANGALA,BANGALORE-560 095. 2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- IILBMTC COMPLEX,80 FEET ROAD,KORAMANGALA,BANGALORE-560 095.. RESPONDENTS IBY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) -9.- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND22/ OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE|THERE COMMON ORDER DATED 17.03.2017 AIT ANNEX-M PASSBY|TH EINCOMBE-TAXAPPHRLLATETRIBUNAL|IN9.P.58/BANG/2017 IN ITA NO.95959/BANG/2017 FOR THASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND EIC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER Petitionerhas|challengedtheorderdated17.33.2017 |Annexure-M to the writ petition] passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, [‘Tribunal’, forshort],CO theexten.|oT theorder.1nSP.No.98/Bang/2017 in ITA No.5959/Bang/2017 for theassessment year 2011-12, inter alia, seeking a directionto the respondent not to impose the demand to theextent of Rs.133,39,74,680/- pursuant to the notice ofdemand dated 29.02.2016 [Annexure-D to the writpetition] issued under Section 156 of the Income TaxAct, 1961 [‘Act’, for short], relating to the assessmentyear 2011-12, till the disposal of the appeal filed by thepetitioner before the Tribunal. -3- a2The grievance of the petitioner is, appealfiled by the Assessee before the Tribunal relating to theassessment year 2011-12 against the order undersection 201/1} and 201/1A} of the Act has not beendisposed of, culminating in the demand raised by theAuthorities impugned herein. 3.It is not in dispute that pursuant to filing ofthis writ petition, on the application filed by theAssessee for extension of interim order, the Tribunal|placing reliance on the Judgment of this Court in WritPetition Nos.92358-59/2017, modified the extendedinterim order, to deposit 59% of the demand and toretain the balance of another 20% in the account of thepetitioner maintained with Citi Bank, M.G. RoadBranch, Bengaluru. The said order was challenged bythe petitioner in Writ Petition No.55578/2017 andconnected matters which came to be disposed of on13.12.2017, modifying the order of the Tribunal to the -4- effect that the petitioner shall pay 20% to therespondent-Department since 30% of the outstandingdues has already been paid, for the balance of 25%, thepetitioner shall furnish bank guarantee on or betore31.12.2017. This order of the learned Single Judge hasbeen alfirmed by the Division Bench of this Court inW.A.Nos.90-52/2018 and allied matters. 4In view of the aforesaid, the interim order ofthe Tribunal challenged in this petition merges with theorder passed by this Court in W.P.No.95978/2017 and.connected matters affirmed by the Division Bench ofthis Court in W.A.Nos.50-52/2018 and connectedmatters. Hence, this petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed as.having rendered infructuous. AN/-, In. Sd/-.JUDGE