Wp/13144/2018 Of Fincare Business Services Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer -Ward 3(1)(1)

IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THER 2 DAY OF MARCH, 2018 BEFORE: THR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICK S.SUJATHA ;WRIT PETITION No.13144/2018 (TIT) BETWEEN: FINCARE BUSINESS SERVICES LID.,.(FORMERLY FINCARE BUSINESSSERVICES PVT.LTD.)NO.835, 5[‘T]FLOOR,SARJAPUR MAIN ROAD,|"BREN MERCURY’,|BANGALORE-561103.REP. HEREIN BY TS DIRECTOR,Mr. KKYUR GOPALBHAI DOSHI._.. PETITIONER| (BY SRI K.P.KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W Ms. TANMAYEE|RAJKUMAR, ADV. FOR SRI V.VINAY GIRI, ADV.)RAJKUMAR, ADV. FOR SRI V.VINAY GIRI, ADV.) AND: 1.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -WARD 3(1)(1) II FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING ,80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA,BBENGALURU-560095.II FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING ,80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA,BBENGALURU-560095. oD THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONBROF INCOME TAX-3, BMTC COMPLEX,OF INCOME TAX-3, BMTC COMPLEX, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE -560095.—. RBSPONDENTS (BY SRI E.L.SANMATHI, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF]THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER|DATED24.01.2018(ANNEXURE-F)PASSEDBYTHE;L RESPONDENT RBJEBECTING THR PRTITIONER'S APPLICATIO FOR STAY OF THB DBMAND PURSUANT TO THE ASSBSSMBEBNORDER PASSED FOR THE ASSEHKSSMENT YEAR 2015-16 ANDIRECTING PAYMENT OF 50% OF THE DEMAND; THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING|IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER Petitioner|haschallengedthe|order.dated24.1.2018 (Annexure-F) to the writ petition passed byrespondent No.1 rejecting the petitioner’s application forstay of the demand pursuant to the assessment orderpassed for the assessment year 2015-16 and directingpayment of 90% of the demand inter alia challengingthe orders at Annexures-L and Q passed by the office ofthe 2[7=]respondent and the 1[*4]respondent, dated.14.2.2018 and 20.3.2018, respectively. | 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents|would submit that admittedly stay application ispendingbeforetheCommissioneroT|Income-tax|(Appeals)-First Appellate Authority and as such, theassessee/ petitioner can pursue his remedy before the -3- First Appellate Authority instead of rushing to thisCourt invoking extra ordinary writ jurisdiction underArticle 296 of the Constitution. 3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for thepetitioner does not dispute the pendency of stayapplication before the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appellate Authority). 4. If that being the position, interest of justicewould be met in directing the petitioner to pursue thematter|beforethe|CommissionerOT Income-tax(Appellate Authority) in the pending proceedings.—Commissioner of Income-tax (Appellate Authority) shallconsider the application of stay filed by the petitioner inan expedite manner and shall take a decision inaccordance with law. However, the Authorities shall notinitiate any precipitative action during the pendency ofthe stay application. In the event a decision is takenagainst the petitioner, the Authorities shall not -4- precipitate the matter for a period of one week from the date of passing of the order by the Appellate Authority. — With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. In. Sd/-. JUDGE