Wp/104192/2014 Of Subhalaxmi v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKADHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1[st] DAY OF APRIL, 2014 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR -WRIT PETITION NO.104192/2014 (TIT) BETWEEN: SMT.SUBHALAXMIW/O DIRENDHRA HULIGOLAGED ABOUT 62 YEARSOCC: AGRICULTUREBURBURE LAYOUTPANCHAXARI NAGARTQ & DIST: GADAG … PETITIONER (BY SRI SHASHANK S HEGDE, ADV.) AND : 1THE INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD-1GADAGWARD-1GADAG 2THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TECH)OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAXCENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGNAVANAGARHUBLI – 580 025OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAXCENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGNAVANAGARHUBLI – 580 025 3THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICERRANGE – 3, NAVANAGARHUBLI – 580 025 4THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX (APPEALS)NAVANAGARHUBLI – 580 025 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADV) - - - - - - - - - - THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TOQUASH IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 28.03.2013 ISSUED BY2 RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-J. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRLY.HG. THISDAY, THE COURTMADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R Heard Sri Shashank S Hegde, learned Advocateappearing for petitioner and Sri Raviraj, learned Advocateappearing for respondents. 2.Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act,1961. For the assessment year 2007-08, return of incomewas filed. Same was called for scrutiny under Section 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and an assessment order cameto be passed determining the tax payable thereon as perAnnexure-A. Being aggrieved by assessment order,petitioner filed an appeal in No.133/HUL/2009-10. Undisputedly, first respondent, exercising power underSection 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has seized theBank Account of petitioner towards recovery of taxdemanded which was pursuant to concluded assessmentproceedings. Subsequently, third respondent has issued anattachment of immovable property of petitioner to recoverthe tax demanded. 3.Sri Shashank Hegde, learned Advocate appearing forpetitioner would fairly submit that petitioner though hassought for quashing of impugned notice he would besatisfied if a direction is issued to fourth respondent beforewhom appeal is pending, to dispose of the said appeal aswell as the application for stay at an early date. 4.Sri Raviraj, learned Advocate appearing for respondents would fairly submit that if sufficient time isgranted to appellate authority, said appeal along with anapplication for stay would be considered and disposed of onmerits and in accordance with law. 5.In that view of the matter, I am of the considered viewthat it would suffice if a direction is issued to fourthrespondent to dispose of pending appealNo.133/HUL/2009-10 along with application for stay if anypending, expeditiously at any rate, within two months fromthe date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Orderedaccordingly. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. SD/-JUDGE