Shriram Adarsh Shiksha Samiti v. Income Tax Officer And Others

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH(Division Bench) Hearing through video conferencing Writ Petition No.6813/2020 Shriram Adarsh Shiksha Samiti versus Income Tax Officer and others to 3. Shri Abhishek Oswal, learned counsel for petitioner.Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Yadav, Acting Chief JusticeHon’ble Mr. Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge O R D E R(Jabalpur, dated : 04.11.2020) Per : Sanjay Yadav, Acting Chief Justice : Challenge in this petition is to an assessment order dated30.12.2019 and the notice of attachment dated 25.02.2020.That by impugned assessment order is assessed to income ofRs.33,64,957/- for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Accordinglydemand notice of Rs.16,53,196/- was issued under Section 156of Income Tax Act, 1961. As the tax was not deposited thepetitioner was subjected to the proceedings under Section 226 of 1961 Act, by issuing impugned notice under Sub-Section(3) of Section 226 of 1961 Act for attachment of Bank A/c. 2-Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition. Therespondents No.1 and 2 have filed the preliminary submissionswherein it is stated that in response to impugned notice underSection 226 (3) of 1961 Act an amount of Rs.4,45,000/- hasbeen attached against the outstanding demand ofRs.16,53,196/-. It is urged that after the deposit of saidamount, the Bank A/c of the petitioner has been released on15.04.2020. As regard to challenge to assessment order it isurged on behalf of respondents that the petitioner has alreadyfiled an appeal under Section 144 of 1961 Act which ispending consideration. 3-The fact adverted at by the respondents are notcontradicted. 4-In view whereof, the relief sought for quashing of BankA/c attachment notice is rendered infructous. 5-As to challenge to Assessment Order since the petitionerhas already availed the remedy of Statutory Appeal, we are notinclined to cause indulgence, merely on the contention that there are over 600 Appeals pending and for non-availability ofthe Appellate Authority there is no likelihood of early hearing. 6-The non-availability of the Appellate Authority ishowever seriously disputed by the respondents. 7-Be that as it may since the petitioner has already filed anappeal against the impugned assessment order, we are notinclined to cause any indulgence. Petitioner, however wouldbe at liberty to file appropriate application for early hearingwhich may be considered by the Appellate Authority on itsmerit. 8-With these observations, the petition is finally disposedof. No costs. (Sanjay Yadav) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (Vijay Kumar Shukla) JUDGE Loretta Digitally signed by LORETTA RAJ Date: 2020.11.06 01:42:44 -08'00'