Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORIGINAL SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1208 OF 2006 Mumbai Metropolitan Region DevelopmentAuthority, Mumbai.vs.Asst.Director of Income-tax(Exemptions), Circle I(1),Mumbai & ors. Petitioner Respondents Mr.J.D.Mistry with Mr.A.K.Jasani i/b.Mr.A.K.Jasani forthe petitioner. Mrs.N.V.Masurkar i/b.Dr.T.C.Kaushik for the respondents. CORAM: R. M. LODHA &J.P. DEVADHAR,JJ. DATED: 26th April, 2006 P.C. (Exemptions) under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation; (1986) (1986) 159 ITR 1. nature. mind that impugned order does not suffer from patent lack of jurisdiction. 7. The counsel then submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to file an appeal against the impugnedorder and direction be issued that until disposal ofappeal, the demand shall not be recovered. He invitedour attention to the order passed by us on 31st March,2006 in Writ Petition No.880/2006, ICICI Securities Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & ors. 8. It is always open to the petitioner to challenge theimpugned order in appeal under Section 246A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961. Our permission is not requiredfor that purpose because the petitioner has statutoryright of appeal. As regards stay of the recovery ofdemand, the petitioner has to apply to the AppellateAuthority. We find no impediment for the appellant inmaking an application for stay before the AppellateAuthority. The fact situation in the present case andin the case of ICICI Securities Limited is different.That was a case where the challenge was to notice forreopening the assessment and the reassessment orderpassed pursuant to that notice. In the present case,the order impugned is regular assessment order. It istrue that by the impugned order the petitioner has beenassessed under Section 143(3) on a total income ofRs.521,05,79,475/- and tax levied is Rs.164,13,05,235/-and interest under Section 234-B is Rs.61,13,86,200/-and, therefore, stakes are high, but that would notjustify invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction or justifying by-pass to the statutory remedy of appeal. 9. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (R.M.LODHA,J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR,J.)