Wa/100416/2022 Of The Raddi Sahakar Bank Niyamit v. Additional/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

WA No. 100416 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCHDATED THIS THE 24 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022.PRESENT| THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV|AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA|$WRIT APPEAL NO. 100416 OF 2022 (TIT) BETWEEN: THE RADDI SAHAKAR BANK NIYAMITPAN AAAAT329/K REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICER SRI VENKARADDI S/O RUDRAPPA NAGAVI,AGE. 57 YEARS, AKSHAYA ENCLOAVE, STATION ROAD,DHARWAD 580001. PAN AAAAT329/K REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICER SRI VENKARADDI S/O RUDRAPPA NAGAVI,AGE. 57 YEARS, AKSHAYA ENCLOAVE, STATION ROAD,DHARWAD 580001. _ APPELLAN (BY SRI. MANOJ D PUKALE.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1ADDITIONAL/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, NAFAC, C-BLOCK, 4TH FLOOR, S.P.M. CIVICCENTRE, NEW DELHI 110001TAX, NAFAC, C-BLOCK, 4TH FLOOR, S.P.M. CIVICCENTRE, NEW DELHI 110001 2DCHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX|REFAC, 2ND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN.E.D.C. COMPLEX, PATTO PLAZA, PANAJI, 403001REFAC, 2ND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN.E.D.C. COMPLEX, PATTO PLAZA, PANAJI, 403001 3.ASST./DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC,CETRALISED PROCESSING CENTRE, INCOME TAX.DEPARTMENT, ELECTRONIC CITY POST OFFICE,BENGALURU 560100CETRALISED PROCESSING CENTRE, INCOME TAX.DEPARTMENT, ELECTRONIC CITY POST OFFICE,BENGALURU 560100 4THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXOFFICER, CIRCLE-1(1) AND TPS—HUBLI, INCOME TAX OFFICE, C.R BUILDING, P.B.ROAD,NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI 580025OFFICER, CIRCLE-1(1) AND TPS—HUBLI, INCOME TAX OFFICE, C.R BUILDING, P.B.ROAD,NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI 580025 WA No. 100416 of 2022 5.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALUNIT-1(CIT(AU)-1), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, P.B.ROAD, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI 580025. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADV. FOR R1 TO R5) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA. HIGHCOURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON BLE COURT TO, ~~ I) THEAPPEAL BE ALLOWED BY MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED|02/09/2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP}NO.103906/2022 (T-IT) Il) DIRECTION BE ISSUED TO REFUND THE.EXCESSIVELY COLLECTED TAX OF RS.1,18,28,036/- AS PER FORM|26AS WHICH ACCRUED TO APPELLANT AS A RESULT OF A) CCBDT|CIRCULAR NO. 2/2022 DATED 11/09/02 AND NO. 19/2015 DATED|27/11/2015 B) CIT(A) ORDER DATED 29/02/15 IN ITA.NO.|482/CIT(A)/HBL/2014-15 C) ITAT ORDER DATED 10/07/2015 IN)TA.NOS.368 AND 369/BANG/2015 AND ORDER DATED 27/09/2017|ITA NO.1245/BNG/2016 AND D) HON BLE HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS|DATED 16/08/2016 IN ITA NOS.100129/100131/100132 ALL OF}2014 FOR THE SAME CAUSE FOR THE EARLIER YEARS WITH AIDIRECTION FOR REFUND WITH INTEREST UNDER S. 244 OF INCOME|ACT, 1961. THE FORM 26AS IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F IN WPIIIT) DIRECTION BE ISSUED TO R-1/R-4 FOR TIME BOUND DISPOSALOF ISSUES REMANDED BY BENGALURU INCOME TAX APPELLATE|TRIBUNAL VIDE PARA .9 OF THE ORDER DATED 31/07/20 IN ITA NO.252/7/BANG/201/7PRODUCEDASANNEXURE-J IN THE.WP|NO.103096/2022 IV) DIRECTION BE ISSUED TO R-5 TO TIME]BOUND DISPOSE PENDING APPEAL DATED 14/02/2018 THE APPEAL|MEMO IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H IN THE WP NO.103096/2022. THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING|THIS DAY, S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: WA No. 100416 of 2022 ORDER The present appeal has been filed challenging the order ofthe learned single Judge passed in W.P.No.103096/2022.whereby the learned single Judge has disposed off the writ.petition directing to dispose off the main matters pending in.respect of the assessment year 2014-15, while also observing|that request for interim prayer that was made before theauthorities cannot be adjudicated upon, as the proceeding itselfnad been disposed off. 2.Learned counsel for the appellant submits thatthere was no protection for him during the pendency of the)proceedings and refund has been adjusted in excess of 20%. It)is further contended that he Is entitied for refund in excess ot 20%. | WA No. 100416 of 2022 ORDER The present appeal has been filed challenging the order ofthe learned single Judge passed in W.P.No.103096/2022.whereby the learned single Judge has disposed off the writ.petition directing to dispose off the main matters pending in.respect of the assessment year 2014-15, while also observing|that request for interim prayer that was made before theauthorities cannot be adjudicated upon, as the proceeding itselfnad been disposed off. 2.Learned counsel for the appellant submits thatthere was no protection for him during the pendency of the)proceedings and refund has been adjusted in excess of 20%. It)is further contended that he Is entitied for refund in excess ot 20%. | 3.It is now noticed that the first appeal of the.assessee is pending and all that could be stated is request of|the appellant herein for refund of the amount in excess of 20%.is a matter that could be raised before the first appellateauthority, who snall consider the same and also endeavour to.dispose off the appeal itself expeditiously. ���������������������� �::<0982;5?��3-.�4//.45�81�981/<1.9�<77�� �'($�"����� �'($�"����� ����