Wp/108592/2014 Of Shri Gomtesh Co-Opertative Credit Society Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKADHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THR 15 DAY OF SKHPTEMBER 2014 BRHRFO THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION NO.108592 /2014 (IT) BRTWERE SHRI GOMTBSH CO-OPBRTATIVECREDIT SOCIBTY LIDREGD. OFFICHKH KOTHACHIKKODI TALUKDIST: BELGAUM 591 287R/BY ITS SECRETARYSHRI MAHAVEBBR CHOUGUL AGE: 39 YEARS. _. PRHTITIONBR (BY SRI. MAHESH R. UPPIN, ADV.) ANI 1.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)BBRLGAUM 591 OOBBRLGAUM 591 OO 2.INCOME TAX OFFICERINCOME TAX OFFICENEMCHAND NAGAR,ASHOK NAGAR,INCOME TAX OFFICENEMCHAND NAGAR,ASHOK NAGAR, NIPANI 591 237 — RBSPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOQUASH THE ORDER DTD.03.09.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2NDRESPONDENT MARKBD AS ANNBXURE-F AND BIC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Petitioner is a Co-operative Society which isengaged in providing credit facilities to its Memberswithin Chikkodi Taluk, Belgaum District. 2.Petitioner has filed this writ petition beingaggrieved by order dated 03.09.2014 (Annexure - F)issued by the second respondent — Income Tax Officer,Nippani to the petitioner to pay the tax dues. Learnedcounsel for the petitioner has stated that as against theassessment order at Annexure — A, petitioner has filedan appeal before the first respondent Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) and that appeal is pendingconsideration. In the interregnum, order at Annexure —F has been made by the second respondent. That orderis challenged in this writ petition. 3.I have heard the learned counsel for thepetitioner and learned counsel for the respondents andperused the material on record. 4During the course of submission, petitioner’scounsel has brought to my notice the fact that thepetitioner has a good case on merits and that thejudgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated05.02.2014 passed in I.T.A. No.SO06/2013 is squarelyapplicable and therefore, the petitioner has the benefitof exemption from the payment of tax under SectionS8OP(2)(a)(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, thsecond respondent cannot take any coercive actionagainst the petitioner herein. respondents states that the petitioner can always seekinterim orders from the first respondent and that if suchan application is filed by the petitioner, it would beconsidered in accordance with law. 6.In the circumstances, Annexure —- F date03.09.2014 is kept in abeyance and second respondentis directed not to take any precipitate or coercive actionon the impugned order dated 03.09.2014 till the firstrespondent considers the interim application filed bythe petitioner and pass an order thereon, It is needless to observe that the first respondentwould consider the application for interim prayer madeby the petitioner in an expeditious manner and inaccordance with law. The writ petition stands disposed with theatoresaid observations and directions. Sd/-JUDGE