Wa/6035/2015 Of Bank Of Baroda v. The Income Tax Officer (Tds)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKADHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF MARCH 2016PRESENT THE HON’'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMES THE HON’‘BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDA ##W.A. Nos. 60356038 of 2015 (TIT) BETWEEN ° BANK OF BARODAREPRESENTED BY CHIEF MANAGER MR. UPADHYAYALAKAMESWARA RAOBELAGAVI BRANCH, 1563,MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590002. APPELLAN[ (BY SRIYUTHS B. S. N. PRASAD AND H.R. KAMBIYAVAR,ADVOCATES) AND : 1.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)F.K. COMMERCIAL COMPLEOPP. DISTRICT HOSPITALDR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD,BELAGAVI-590001 2.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)F.K. COMMERCIAL COMPLEF.K. COMMERCIAL COMPLE OPP. DISTRICT HOSPITALDR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD,BELAGAVI-590001. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y.V. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THEORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NOS.114181-114184 OF15 DATED 18/12/15. I.A. NO.2/2015 IS FILED FOR STAY. THESE W.As. A/W. I.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARYHEARING THIS DAY,|H.G. RAMESH J., DELIVERED IHEFOLLOWING:JUDGMENT H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral)( 1.These appeals are directed against an order of alearned Single Judge dated 18.12.2015 made in W.P.Nos.114181-114184 of 2015. By the impugned order, thelearned Single Judge nas dismissed the appellant's (Bank ofBaroda)aforesaidwrit.petitionsby.affirming6-.interlocutory order dated 15.04.2015 passed py the FirstAppellate Authority (respondent No.2 herein) rejecting tneinterlocutory applications filed in their appeals for grant ofStay of the impugned demand dated 16.03.2015. Tneappeals are preferred against the orders of the AssessingOfficer dated 23.02.2015 passed under Section 201(1) &(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’, for short)against the appellant treating the appellant as an|adSSCSSCin default. ?By consent of learned counsel on both sides, theappeals are heard finally on merits and are being disposedof by this order, icTne sole contention urged by learned counselappearing for the appellant — Bank Is tnat the First AppellateAutnority as well as the learned Single Judge have notconsidered the applicability of the first proviso to Section201(1) of the Act to the facts of the case. Learned counselappearing for the appellant further submitted that theaforesaid proviso is attracted to tne facts of the case. 4.Learned counsel appearing for tne respondents -Revenue submitted that the appellant has now furnished acertificate dated 11.06.2015 contemplated under the firstproviso to Section 201(1) of tne Act. 5_In view of the above, in our opinion, the impugnedorder of the learned Single Judge dated 18.12.2015 as wellas the order passed by First Appellate Authority dated15.04.2015 rejecting the appellant’s application filed forinterim stay are liable to be set aside and the matter requires to be reconsidered py the Appellate Authority,namely the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), inaccordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Tne AppellateAuthority shallinter alia|consider as to whether the firstproviso to Section 201(1) of the Act is applicable to thefacts of the case or not. All contentions of both the partiesare kept open. The appeals stand disposed of in the aboveterms. 6. In view of disposal of the appeals, I.A. No.2/2015filed for interim stay does not survive for consideration; it stands disposed of accordingly. Appeals disposed of. Sd/-JUDGE Sd/-JUDGE -8: