Wp/11516/2019 Of M/S Bangalore Development Authority v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THER 1 DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE: THR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICK S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.1151611517 OF 2019 (T.IT) BETWEEN: M/S BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYRBEPRBSEBENTBD BY ITS COMMISSIONSRI. RAKESH SINGHSON OF BHART PRASAD SINGHAGE 55 YEARS, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD|KUMARAPARK WEST,BENGALURU - 560 O2O. _. PRHTITIONBER IBY SRI. ANNAMALAI. S ADVOCATE] AND: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS)ROOM NO. 606, 6 KLOORUNITY BUILDING ANNEXEP, KALINGA ROAD |BENGALURU - 560 O27. _ RESPONDENT IBY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE] THERESE WRIT PRTITIONS ARB FILED UNDER ARTICLE226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO |OQUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE STAYPERTITION VIDB ORDBR DATBD 11.1.2019 REFERRED AS|ANNBXURE-A. THERESK PERETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINHEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- -9.- ORDER Learned Counsel Sri K.V.Aravind accepts notice,for the respondent. 2. The petitioner is a statutory body and is aninstrumentality of the Government of Karnataka. Theassessments were concluded by the Assessing Officerfixing the tax hability and interest’ relating to theassessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner would submit that forthe assessment year relating to 2012-13, the stayapplication filed by the assessee before the Income-Tax.Appellate Tribunal |ITAT|] has been allowed. However,the stay applications relating to the assessment year2013-14 and 2014-15 came to be dismissed. 3. The learned counsel submits that the petitionerhas paid the entire tax amount relating to theassessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 and thebalance amount payable is relating to the interest part. —Thus, the petitioner seeks stay of the operation of the -3- order passed by the ITAT in Stay Petition Nos.6&//Bang/2019 in ITA No.1970 & 1971/Bang/2018 ©vide order dated 11.1.2019 and to stay the recovery ofdemand of disputed tax payable for the assessmentyea#©r2013-14and9014-15)andTO direct.therespondent not to take any coercive steps for therecovery of the balance amount due towards the tax andinterest for the said assessment years. — 4 The learned counsel for the Revenue wouldsubmit that the petition may be considered on theSubmissions made in the writ petition subject toverification by the department in as much as thepayment of tax amount paid by the petitioner on thedemand raised. o. I have considered the submissions made by thelearned Counsel for the parties as aforesaid. It isapparent from the material placed on record that thepetitioner appears to have paid the tax amountdemanded for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014- lo. The amount sought to be stayed appears to be -4- towards interest under section 234B and 220(2) of the —Act. In such circumstances, the Tribunal ought tohave considered the stay applications filed by thepetitioner more particularly, when the stay applicationrelating to the assessment year 2012-13 has beenconsidered and allowed. Taking into considerationthese aspects, this court is of the considered opinionthat the interest of justice would be met in allowing thiswrit petition, setting aside the order of the Tribunalimpugned herein and staying the recovery of thebalance amount for the assessment years 2013-14 and2014-15 subject to verification by the department in asmuch as payment of tax is concerned. If any short fallis found in the payment of tax relating to the demandmade by the revenue, the revenue is at liberty to put thepetitioner on notice and demand the tax amount. With the aforesaid observations and directions,the writ petitions stand disposed of. | nv Sd/-.JUDGE