M/S. Ujjain Dugdh Sangh Sahkari Maryadit v. Asstt
High Court
02 Mar 2020 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · mphc_db_ind
Parties
M/S. Ujjain Dugdh Sangh Sahkari Maryadit v. Asstt
Date of order
02 Mar 2020
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In M/S. Ujjain Dugdh Sangh Sahkari Maryadit v. Asstt, the High Court (2020) decided the matter.
Decision: With the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed of.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
W P No. 5603 / 2020
M/S. UJJAIN DUGDH SANGH SAHKARI MARYADIT VS. ASSTT.
COMMISSINOER OF INCOME TAX – 2(1), UJJAIN
--- 1 ---
INDORE, Dated : 02/03/2020
Mr. P. M. Choudhary, learned senior counsel appearingwith Mr. Anand Prabhawalkar and Ms. Rashi Gohil,Advocates for the petitioner.
Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned counsel for the respondent– Department.
The petitioner before this Court, M/s. Ujjain DugdhSangh Sahkari Maryadit Navlakhi, Maksi Road, Ujjain, acooperative society, registered under the CooperativeSocieties Act, has filed this present writ petition beingaggrieved by the notice dated 27/2/2020 issued by theDCIT / ACIT, 2(1) Ujjain, in respect of Bank Accounts ofthe petitioner.
The undisputed facts of the case reveals that thepetitioner's appeal is pending before the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) and the petitioner was required todeposit 20% of the outstanding amount.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued beforethis Court that the Income Tax Department has alreadyrecovered 20% of the outstanding demand and no purpose isgoing to be served by freezing other bank accounts. It hasbeen stated that applications were preferred on 10/2/2020and 28/2/2020 informing the Commissioner of Income Taxthat 20% of the outstanding demand has already beenrecovered by the Department and, therefore, the other bank
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
W P No. 5603 / 2020
M/S. UJJAIN DUGDH SANGH SAHKARI MARYADIT VS. ASSTT.COMMISSINOER OF INCOME TAX – 2(1), UJJAIN
--- 2 ---
accounts may not be freezed.
Learned counsel for the respondent Department hasfairly stated before this Court that some breathing time begranted to the Department to decide the applicationspreferred in the matter.
Resultantly, the present petition is disposed of with adirection to the respondent Department to pass appropriateorder keeping in view the amount already recovered and theoutstanding amount which is outstanding against thepetitioner.
The Commissioner shall decide the aforesaidapplications by taking into account the CBDT Circular dated29/2/2016 and 31/7/2017 within a period of 3 days from thedate of receipt of certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed
of.
Certified copy, TODAY.
KR
(S. C. SHARMA)(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)J U D G EJ U D G E
Digitally signed by Kamal Rathor Date: 2020.03.02 11:28:04 +05'30'
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.