Trac Media Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,Ministry Of Financeincome Tax Department,National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.02.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR W.P. No.2747 of 2022 andW.M.P.Nos.2909 & 2910 of 2022 Trac Media Private Limited,Represented by its Authorised SignatoryMs.Kavery Jagannathanhaving its office at No.35, Northern Phase 3rd Main Road,Kalaimagal Nagar, EkkatuthangalChennai – 600 032. ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Ministry of FinanceIncome Tax Department,National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax,Non-Corporate Circle 10(1) Chennai,121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamuscalling for records relating to the demand of the firstrespondent in File No.:ITBA/ AST/S/156/2021-22/1032527787(1)dated 19.04.2021 and quash the same and forbear the firstrespondent from initiating recovery proceedings pending disposalof the Writ Petition. For Petitioner : Dr.M.Sathyakumar For Respondents : Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan Senior Standing Counsel https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of certiorarifiedmandamus calling for records relating to the demand of the firstrespondent in File No.:ITBA/AST/S/156/2021-22/1032527787(1)dated 19.04.2021 and quash the same and forbear the firstrespondent from initiating recovery proceedings. 2. In respect of assessment year 2018-2019, in order torecover the tax assessed and imposed against the petitioner tothe extent of Rs.15,30,23,040/-, the concerned authority ofNational e-Assessment Centre has issued a demand notice underSection 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').Challenging the said order, the petitioner moved this writpetition on the ground that, as against the assessment orderdated 19.04.2021 appeal has been filed to National FacelessAppeal Centre. However, there has been no acknowledgment orcommunication whatsoever received by the petitioner in respectof the filing of the appeal or pendency of the appeal or furtherprogression of the appeal. Therefore, based on which, thepetitioner could not move any application before the AssessingAuthority to stay the demand under Section 220(6) of the Act. 3. Mr.Sathyakumar, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner would submit that, since it is high pitch demand ofmore than Rs.15 Crores, because of the demand now made throughthe impugned order, the petitioner is greatly prejudiced as thepetitioner has got a presentable case in the appeal which hasalready been filed before the Appellate Authority. 4. Even if the petitioner is driven to go before theAssessing Authority to file an application under Section 220(6)against the assessment order, that will be an On-line process,where, there can be no chance of the petitioner to put forth hiscase as it is a high pitch demand. Therefore, lessor percentageof demand can be directed to be paid by the petitioner by way ofcondition to be imposed in this regard under the said sub-section (6) of Section 220, in case, the Assessing Authoritypasses an order of stay. Therefore, since that chance is notavailable before the petitioner, he has no other option exceptto challenge the present demand made through the impugned noticedated 19.04.2021 issued under Section 156 of the Act, hence, thelearned counsel seeks indulgence of this Court in this regard. 5. Heard Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Senior StandingCounsel appearing for the respondents who would submit that, thepetitioner claimed to have filed an appeal before the NationalFaceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) and mere filing of an appeal willnot entail the petitioner to seek for any indulgence before this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court against the demand made under Section 156 of the Act. 5. Heard Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Senior StandingCounsel appearing for the respondents who would submit that, thepetitioner claimed to have filed an appeal before the NationalFaceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) and mere filing of an appeal willnot entail the petitioner to seek for any indulgence before this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court against the demand made under Section 156 of the Act. 6. In this regard, the petitioner is free to make anapplication under Section 220(6) of the Act before the AssessingAuthority, where, considering the plea to be made by thepetitioner, the Assessing Authority by using his discretion mayconsider the said application, of course, by imposing certainconditions. When that being the procedure to be adopted, withoutwhich, the petitioner cannot straight away approach this Courtby filing the present writ petition against the demand madeunder Section 156, therefore, on that ground itself, this writpetition is liable to be rejected, she contended. 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by thelearned counsel appearing for both sides and taking into accountthe fact that, the petitioner is entitled to make an applicationunder Section 220(6) of the Act, before the Assessing Authorityto seek for a stay, of course, on condition, where, thepetitioner can also put forth his case that, since it is a highpitch demand, the usual condition to be imposed in this regardfor making a part of the demand, can be relaxed to the extentpossible, this Court feels that, the present attempt made by thepetitioner by filing this writ petition against the demand madeunder Section 156 of the Act cannot be entertained. 8. The reason being, mere filing of an appeal against theassessment order will not preclude the Assessing Authority tomake a demand under Section 156 and therefore, the mere filingof an appeal and the information to that effect claimed to havebeen furnished to the Assessing Authority will not preclude theAssessing Authority to make a demand and therefore, on thatground also, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writpetition. 9. However, it is open to the petitioner to make anapplication under Section 220(6) of the Act within a period oftwo weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,where, it is open to the petitioner to put forth his case that,since it is a high pitch claim of demand, the usual condition tobe imposed by the Assessing Authority as a condition for grantof stay can be modified for a lesser percentage of demand andonce such application is filed with an input and the plea to bemade in this regard as indicated above by the petitioner, thesame shall be objectively considered and decided on merits bythe Assessing Authority within a period of four weeksthereafter. 10. With these observations, this Writ Petition is disposedof. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitionsare closed. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(CS-VI) //True copy// Sgl Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Ministry of FinanceIncome Tax Department,National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax,Non-Corporate Circle 10(1) Chennai,121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. +1cc to Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, Advocate SR.No.10637 W.P.No.2747 of 2022 NRL(CO)GMY(18/03/2022)