Ms. R. Kurmy, Advocate v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sambalpur, Odisha & Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 31111 of 2023 ….. Petitioner Pawan Bagaria Ms. R. Kurmy, Advocate Vs. ….. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur, Odisha & Ors. Opposite PartiesMr. S. S. Mohapatra, Sr. Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department CORAM: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN ORDER 06.10.2023 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. Order No.1 2. Heard Ms. R. Kurmy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the Stay Revision Order dated 25.08.2023 bearing No. Pr.CIT/SBP/Stay/2023-24/2991 [DIN-ITBA /COM/M /17/ 2023-24/1055446608(1) under Annexure-1 passed by opposite party no.1. 4. At the outset, Ms. R. Kurmy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that against the demand of Rs.2,21,81,141/- for the assessment year 2017-18, the petitioner preferred appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre and moved the assessing authority under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for stay of the demand. But the said authority directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the total amount as per circular issued by the CBDT. It is contended that such executive instruction is not mandatory rather it is a directive one. The revision application being moved before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 264(1) of the Income Tax Act, while maintaining the order of the assessing authority, said revisional authority fixed four equated instalments as a condition for stay recovery of the demand. The petitioner being aggrieved approached this Court by way of filing the writ petition. 5. Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department contended that the guidelines issued by the CBDT is binding on the authority. More so, pending finalization of appeal, the petitioner is directed to pay 20% of the demanded amount in instalments and to avoid payment of the said amount, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that since the impugned order is passed pending finalization of demand in appeal, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. As such, the petitioner has already preferred appeal, but he is reluctant to deposit 20% of the demanded amount in instalments as directed by the revisional authority, as per the guidelines issued by the CBDT. Therefore, the order passed by the revisional authority is justified in view of the guideline issued by CBDT. 7. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Signature Not Verified Digitally SignedSigned by: ALOK RANJAN SETHYDesignation: SecretaryReason: AuthenticationLocation: orissa high courtAlokDate: 06-Oct-2023 18:35:28 (DR. B.R. SARANGI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE