The Lalit Narayan Mithila University v. The Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patna, Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNACivil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2228 of 2025 ====================================================== The Lalit Narayan Mithila University through its Registrar, Laheriasarai,Darbhanga namely Ajay Kumar Pandit aged about 61 years (Male) S/o LateHiralal Pandit, R/o- Suwahi, P.S. Siswan, District - Siwan, Bihar - 841210. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1.The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna, Bihar. 2.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna - 1, Income Tax Bhawan,Patna, Bihar.Patna, Bihar. 3.The Assessment Unit through the National Faceless Assessment Unit,Income Tax Department, New Delhi.Income Tax Department, New Delhi. 4.The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, ITO Ward 3 (1), Darbhanga. ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================Appearance :For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi, Sr. Advocate Mr.Ali Muqtadir Ahmad, Advocate Mr. Ajit Kumar Jha, Advocate Mrs. Smriti Singh, AdvocateFor the Respondent/s: Mr.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGHORAL JUDGMENT(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) Date : 22-07-2025 In the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for thefollowing relief(s):- (i) For issuance of writ of certiorari forquashing the order bearing DIN ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/106392012(1) dated 30.03.2024 issued under thesignature of Respondent No. 3 under Section 147 readwith Section 144 read with Section 144B of the IncomeTax Act whereby the exemption of the PetitionerUniversity claimed under Section 10(23C) (iiiab) of the Act has been denied without any cogent material and inteeth of provisions of the Income Tax Act. (ii) For issuance of writ of certiorari forquashing the letter of rejection of stay petition filed bythe Petitioner University pursuant to Section 220(6) ofthe Income Tax Act, whereby the Respondent No. 2without appreciating the provisions of law rejected thestay petition of the Petitioner University vide letterbearing F.No. Pr.CIT/Pat/Hqrs. /Stay of Demand/2024-25/6117 dated 10/13.01.2025. (iii) For issuance of writ of certiorari forquashing the letter dated 23.01.2025 of Respondent No.4, whereby the assessing authority has directed thePetitioner University to deposit the 20% of the disputeddemand i.e. Rs 100 Crores approximately by the10.02.2025 failing which the recovery proceeding will beinitiated against the Petitioner University under variouspenal provisions of the Income Tax Act. (iv) For issuance of writ of mandamus fortreating all the income of the Petitioner University, beingsubstantially financed by the government, as exemptpursuant to Section 10(23C) (iiiab) of Income Tax Act. (v) For any other order or orders as yourLordships may deem fit and proper in the facts andcircumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner was subjected to income tax assessment forthe year 2019-2020 to that effect, assessment order was passed on30.03.2024. The petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal beforethe appellate authority under Section 246-A of Income Tax Act, 1961. He has already invoked remedy of appeal before theappellate authority in the meanwhile, he had filed anapplication/representation on 16.08.2024 to stay the demand interms of assessment order dated 30.03.2024. It was partly rejectedto the extent that petitioner is liable to pay 20% of the disputeddemand vide communication dated 10/13.01.2025 vide Annexure-P/7. Filing of application or representation dated 16.08.2024 readwith decision of the Principal Commissioner of Income Taxcommunication dated 10/13.01.2025 is not in accordance with theany statutory provision under the Income Tax Act, 1961. On theother hand it is arising out of some administrative circular stated tohave been issued in the department. 1961. He has already invoked remedy of appeal before theappellate authority in the meanwhile, he had filed anapplication/representation on 16.08.2024 to stay the demand interms of assessment order dated 30.03.2024. It was partly rejectedto the extent that petitioner is liable to pay 20% of the disputeddemand vide communication dated 10/13.01.2025 vide Annexure-P/7. Filing of application or representation dated 16.08.2024 readwith decision of the Principal Commissioner of Income Taxcommunication dated 10/13.01.2025 is not in accordance with theany statutory provision under the Income Tax Act, 1961. On theother hand it is arising out of some administrative circular stated tohave been issued in the department. 3. Be that as it may, petitioner has to make necessaryapplication before the appellate authority insofar as seekinginterim relief of staying the demand with reference to assessmentorder dated 30.03.2024. Such application has not been filed oraccompanied by memorandum of appeal on the score thatappellate authority has no jurisdiction to grant interim relief.Quasi-judicial authority are empowered to decide main matter aswell as they can grant interim relief, there can’t be any restrictioninsofar as passing only final order, with reference to mitigatingcircumstances quasi-judicial authority is equally empowered to grant interim relief. Therefore, petitioner is hereby directed to fileInterlocutory Application in the existing memorandum of appealbefore the appellate authority in seeking interim relief. If suchapplication is filed by the petitioner, before the appellate authority,the appellate authority is requested to decide such interim reliefapplication within a reasonable period of ten days from the date ofreceipt of such Interlocutory Application to be filed. 4. With the above observation, the present CWJC No.2228 of 2025 stands disposed of. (P. B. Bajanthri, J) ( S. B. Pd. Singh, J) Ankit Kumar/- AFR/NAFR NAFRCAV DATE NAUploading Date 25.07.2025Transmission DateNA