Wp/104066/2017 Of Smt. Shanthalakshmi Jayaram v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

- 1: IN THER HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKDHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF JUNE 2017 BEEORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SREENIVASE GOWDA $WRIT PETITION NO.104066/2017 (TIT) BETWEEN SMT. SHANTHALAKSHMI JAYARAMW/O VN JAYARAM,AGE : 60 YEARS,OCC : BUSINESSVINAY MANSION, #49, VIJAYANAGAR COLONY,BALIARI-583104. (By SRI CHYTHANYA K.KK., ADVOCATE ) .. PETITIONER AND 1.THER PRINCIPACOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,AAYAKAR BHAVAN,SEDAM ROAD, KALABURGI-585105, 2.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,2ND FLOOR, AYAKAR BHAVAN,STAFF ROAD, FORT, BALLARI-583102. 3.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),3RD FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN,SEDAM ROAD, KALABURGI-585105,.. RESPONDENTS (By Sri. VIJAY MALALI, ADVOCATE FORSRI Y.V. RAVIRAY )| THIS WRIT PETITION JIS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AS FARAS THER PERTITIONER IS CONCKRNED BY AN APPROPRIAWRIT OR ORDER IN THR NATURE OF CHRRTIORARI OOTHRRWISHK THR IMPUGNED STAY ORDER EFKNO.7 STAYDEMAND /Pr.CIT/KLB/2016-17 DATED:31.03.2017 ISSUED BY THLEARNED.FIRSTRESPONDENTFORTHEAY2012-2013,BENCLOSED IN ANNEXURE-A AND EIT THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THISDAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking thefollowing reliefs: (A)Quash asfar as thepetitioner 1s concerned by an appropriate wrihor order in the nature of certiorari or otherwise the impugned stayorder F.No.stay of demand/Pr.CIl/KLB/2016-17 datea31.03.2017 issued by the learnedfirst respondent for the AY2012-13 enclosed in Annexure A,or order in the nature of certiorari or otherwise the impugned stayorder F.No.stay of demand/Pr.CIl/KLB/2016-17 datea31.03.2017 issued by the learnedfirst respondent for the AY2012-13 enclosed in Annexure A, (B)Quash asfar as thepetitioner ts concerned by an appropriate wrihor order in the nature of certiorari or otherwise the impugnedletter No.Recovery/SLJ/ACIT/C-1/ BLY/2016-17 dat10.02.2017 issued by the learned second respondent to theDirector ofMines ana Geology, Bengalurufor the AY 2012-13enclosed in Annexure BT)or order in the nature of certiorari or otherwise the impugnedletter No.Recovery/SLJ/ACIT/C-1/ BLY/2016-17 dat10.02.2017 issued by the learned second respondent to theDirector ofMines ana Geology, Bengalurufor the AY 2012-13enclosed in Annexure BT) (C)Quash asfar as thepetitioner ts concerned by an appropriate wrihor order in the nature of certiorari or otherwise the impugnednolicesNo.SLJ/226(3)/ ACIT/ BLY / 2016dated10.12.2017 issued by the learned second respondent to theBranch Manager to State Bank of India, Canara Bank,Syndicate Bank and Indian Overseas Bank for the AY 2071213 enclosed in Annexure B2 to Annexure BD)or order in the nature of certiorari or otherwise the impugnednolicesNo.SLJ/226(3)/ ACIT/ BLY / 2016dated10.12.2017 issued by the learned second respondent to theBranch Manager to State Bank of India, Canara Bank,Syndicate Bank and Indian Overseas Bank for the AY 2071213 enclosed in Annexure B2 to Annexure BD) (LDDirect the learned second respondent by an appropriate writ onorder in the nature of mandamus or otherwise, not to take anycoercive steps towaras recovery of the disputed tax, as specified imdemand notice enclosed in Annexure C till the disposal ofappeatby the learned third responaent.order in the nature of mandamus or otherwise, not to take anycoercive steps towaras recovery of the disputed tax, as specified imdemand notice enclosed in Annexure C till the disposal ofappeatby the learned third responaent. (BEDirect the learned thira respondent by an appropriate writ onorder in the nature ofmandamus or othernise to hear and disposethe appeal at an early datefor theAY 2072-1),order in the nature ofmandamus or othernise to hear and disposethe appeal at an early datefor theAY 2072-1), (F)Grant such other reliefs as this Honourable High Court maythink.fit incluaing the cost ofthis writpetition.think.fit incluaing the cost ofthis writpetition.2 Heard Sri. Chythanya K.K., learned counsel for the (BEDirect the learned thira respondent by an appropriate writ onorder in the nature ofmandamus or othernise to hear and disposethe appeal at an early datefor theAY 2072-1),order in the nature ofmandamus or othernise to hear and disposethe appeal at an early datefor theAY 2072-1), (F)Grant such other reliefs as this Honourable High Court maythink.fit incluaing the cost ofthis writpetition.think.fit incluaing the cost ofthis writpetition.2 Heard Sri. Chythanya K.K., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.V. Raviraj, learned standing counsel for therespondents. Perused the writ petition and Annexures producedalong with the writ petition. onThe petitioner is an income tax assessee and hasbeen paying income tax regularly. It 1s the case of the petitionerthat ?[5;]respondent —Assessing Authority by assessment orderdated 29.03.2016 has made an addition of Rs.22,68,84,040/- asagainst the return income of Rs.36,85,674/- and demanded a taxof Rs.10,18,78,983/-. Thepetitioner agerieved by the assessmentorder passed by the second respondent as per Annexure-D challengedthe same by preferring an appeal before the First Appellate Authority#+[.;]respondent) on 27.04.2016. As there is no provision in law for thepetitioner to seek stay of the operation and execution of theAssessment order passed by the 2[5;]respondent in the appeal,petitioner has approached the 1[83]respondent requesting to grant stayand the 1[83]respondent has eranted stay for the operation and executionof the assessment order passed by the 2[5;]respondent at Annexure-Dsubject to the petitioner depositing 15'% of the demanded tax oRs.10,18,78,983/- in installments at the rate of Rs.10,00,000/- permonth.As petitioner has difficulty to comply with the conditionsimposed by the first respondent while granting stay, has preferredthis writ petition seeking reliefs stated supra,This Court granted| stay of the operation and execution of the assessment order subject tothepetitioner|payingRs.5,00,000 /-permonth.as|7>7/583Rs.10,00,000/- per month as ordered by the first respondent, A Learned counsel for the petitioner submits petitionerhas been paying Rs.5,00,000/- per month as ordered by this Courtand there is no disobedience of the interim order granted by thisCourt. He submits instead of keeping this writ petition pendingbefore this Court, it may be disposed of by directing the FirstAppellate Authority(3[.;]respondent) to dispose of the appealpreferred by the petitioner expeditiously on merits and inaccotdance with law till then, stay order granted by this Courtpermitting the petitioner to pay Rs.5,00,000/- per month asagainst Rs.10,00,000/- as directed by the first respondent may becontinued, 5.sri. Y.V. Raviraj, learned standing counsel for therespondents submits, the petitioner has to pay huge tax as per theassessment order of the first respondent. However, he submits in|the event of this Court disposing of the writ petition by directing the First Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal preferred bythe petitioner expeditiously, till then, the petitioner may bedirected to continue to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as ordered by this Courtwhile granting interim prayer without fail and it may be madesubject to final result of the appeal. He further submits, petitionermay be directed to extend co-operation with the First AppellateAuthority to dispose of the appeal expeditiously. OnIt is not in dispute that the petitioner agerieved bythe assessment order passed by the second respondent as perAnnexute-D challenged the same by preferring an appeal beforethe First Appellate Authority on 27.04.2016. As there is noprovision in law for the petitioner to seek stay of the operationand execution of the Assessment order passed by the 2[5;]respondent in the appeal, petitioner has approached the 1[83]respondent requesting to grant stay and the 1[83]respondent hasoranted stay for the operation and execution of the assessmentorfder passed by the [5;]respondent at Annexure-D subject to thepetitioner|depositing15%|ot|the|demanded.Tax4: OnIt is not in dispute that the petitioner agerieved bythe assessment order passed by the second respondent as perAnnexute-D challenged the same by preferring an appeal beforethe First Appellate Authority on 27.04.2016. As there is noprovision in law for the petitioner to seek stay of the operationand execution of the Assessment order passed by the 2[5;]respondent in the appeal, petitioner has approached the 1[83]respondent requesting to grant stay and the 1[83]respondent hasoranted stay for the operation and execution of the assessmentorfder passed by the [5;]respondent at Annexure-D subject to thepetitioner|depositing15%|ot|the|demanded.Tax4: Rs.10,18,78,983/- in installments at the rate of Rs.10,00,000/- permonth. This Court while granting interim order for theassessment order at Annexure-D stayed the assessment ordersubject to the petitioner paying Rs.5,00,000/- per month insteadof Rs.10,00,000/- per month as ordered by the first respondent.In view of the above, Justice would be met if writ petition 1sdisposed of by directing the First Appellate Authority(3[.;]respondent)to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner on2704.2016 on merits and in accordance with law within the timeframe fixed by this Court with a direction to the petitioner to payRs.5,00,000/- per month till the disposal of the appeal as orderedby this Court. Hence the following order: The petition stands disposed of. The First AppellateAuthority(3[.;]respondent) is hereby directed to dispose of theappeal preferred by the petitioner on 24.07.2016 as per Annexure-E on merits and in accordance with law after providing anopportunity of hearing to the petitioner within two months fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioner shall pay Rs.5,00,000/- per month till the disposal of the appeal regularly interms of the interim order granted by this Court on 11.05.2016.This arrangement is subject to final result of the appeal pendingbefore the First Appellate Authority(3[.;]respondent). Petitionershall extend co-operation with the First Appellate Authority(3[.;]respondent) 1n order to enable the First Appellate Authority todispose of the appeal within the time stipulated herein above. ori Y.V. Raviraj, is granted four weeks time to file memo ofappearance on behalf of the respondents, Sd/-JUDGE =EB