M/S Al-Baari & Sons v. The Income Tax Officer Ward

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL W.P. (C) No. 778 of 2016 M/S AL-Baari & Sons through its proprietor Md. Abdul Barik, aged about 66 years, S/O Md. Mohidden, a resident of Muslim Nagar, Ward No. 5, P.O. and P.S. Moreh, Chandel District, Manipur. - Versus – ……. Petitioner 1. The Income Tax Officer Ward No. 1, Imphal, Central Jail Road, Old Lambulane, Imphal, Manipur. Lambulane, Imphal, Manipur. 2. The Income Tax Officer Ward No. 2, Imphal, Central Jail Road, Old Lambulane, Imphal, Manipur. Lambulane, Imphal, Manipur. Respondents 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jorhat, Aayakar Bhawan, Thana Road, Jorhat. Bhawan, Thana Road, Jorhat. …. Proforma Respondent BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR For the Petitioner For the Respondents For the Respondents : Mr. H.S. Paonam, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate Date of Order :13.11.2019 ORDER [1] Heard Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel appearing for Income Tax Department. [2] The prayers in the writ petition are as follows: ii) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned assessment order dated 4-3-2013 passed by the the impugned assessment order dated 4-3-2013 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Imphal under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as not sustainable in the eyes of law and cancellation of income tax demand raised by the said order; iii) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 13-09-2013 passed under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as not sustainable in the eyes of law and cancellation of income tax demand raised by the said order; the impugned order dated 13-09-2013 passed under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as not sustainable in the eyes of law and cancellation of income tax demand raised by the said order; iv) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the notice dated 18-04-2016 for recovery of outstanding demand of Rs. 92,20,150/- as not sustainable in the eyes of law. the notice dated 18-04-2016 for recovery of outstanding demand of Rs. 92,20,150/- as not sustainable in the eyes of law. [3] The writ petition arises out of assessment order dated 04.03.2013 and consequential proceedings. One among the prayers is that there is an appeal, being Appeal No. Mnp/51/2015-16, pending before the CIT(A), Jorhat for the assessment year 2010-11, that is in relation to assessment order 04.03.2013 passed under section 144 and order dated 13.09.2013 under Section 154 of the Income tax Act. [4] As per Annexure A/13, notice for hearing of the said appeal was fixed for 18.4.2016 in the letter of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 6Jorhat, dated /4/2016 which has not reached the petitioner in time. Whereas, 8Sub Post Master, Moreh, Department of Post, reported that as per tracking record, the dispatch of the same was made on 29.4.2016 well after the date of hearing. [5] Be that as it may, today, when the matter is taken up, Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner pleaded that the petitioner is willing to pursue the appeal remedy and seeks for an opportunity to prosecute the appeal. [6] Mr. Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for Income Tax Department, on instruction states that the appeal is still pending and has not been disposed of so far. Hence, there appears to be no impediment for the petitioner to appear and prosecute the appeal before the CIT (A), Jorhat. [7] In view of the stand taken by the petitioner to pursue the alternate remedy before the CIT(A), Jorhat, the relief No. (ii), (iii), (iv) & (v) are declined and liberty is given to the petitioner to pursue the appeal before the CIT (A), Jorhat, relating to assessment order dated 04.03.2013 and 13.9.2013 as stated in the prayer in the writ petition. [6] Mr. Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for Income Tax Department, on instruction states that the appeal is still pending and has not been disposed of so far. Hence, there appears to be no impediment for the petitioner to appear and prosecute the appeal before the CIT (A), Jorhat. [7] In view of the stand taken by the petitioner to pursue the alternate remedy before the CIT(A), Jorhat, the relief No. (ii), (iii), (iv) & (v) are declined and liberty is given to the petitioner to pursue the appeal before the CIT (A), Jorhat, relating to assessment order dated 04.03.2013 and 13.9.2013 as stated in the prayer in the writ petition. [8] There is a plea for interim protection pending the appeal. The petitioner is always entitled to move CIT(A), Jorhat for interim protection. Petitioner is given time till 28.12.2019 to move CIT(A), Jorhat for interim protection. [9] Till such time, respondents counsel states that department will refrain from taking any coercive action against the petitioner pursuant to the proceeding referred to above. [10] Giving liberty as above, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sandeep CHIEF JUSTICE WAIKH Digitally signed OM by WAIKHOM TONEN MEITEI TONEN Date: 2019.11.16 MEITEI14:06:21 -08'00'