Wp/1641/2016 Of Supermax Personal Care Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And 4 Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1641 OF 2016 Supermax Personal Care Private Ltd...PetitionerVersusAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax,(LTU) -1 & Ors. ..Respondents ........... Mr.J.D. Mistri with Mr.Ranjit Shetty, Mr.Sankalp Anantwar, Mr.AkshayNaik, Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala I/b. Argus Partners for Petitioner.Mr.Charanjeet Chanderpal for Respondent - Revenue. ........... CORAM: M. S. SANKLECHA & S.C. GUPTE, JJ. DATE : 24 AUGUST 2016 P.C.: 1This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiachallenges three orders, dated 12 May 2016, 7 June 2016 and 13 June2016, passed under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) byAssessing Officer (Respondent No.1), Additional Commissioner of IncomeTax (Respondent No.2) and Commissioner of Income Tax (RespondentNo.3) respectively. 2All the three impugned orders rejected the prayer forunconditional stay of tax demand of Rs.1737.25 crores for AssessmentYear 2011-12, consequent to Assessment Order dated 31 March 2016 till the disposal of Petitioner's appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) (Respondent No.4). The impugned orders directed thePetitioner to pay 15% of the tax due in terms of the Central Board ofDirect Tax Circular dated 29 February 2016. 3After hearing the Petitioner for sometime, we found that theissue appears to be contentious. At this stage, Mr.Chanderpal, learnedCounsel for the Respondent – Revenue, on instructions, states that theappeal filed by the Petitioner on 28 April 2016 against the order dated 31March 2016 with the Commissioner for Income-tax (Appeals) would betaken up expeditiously for hearing, and in any case, the appeal would bedisposed of within six weeks from today. 4However, it is made clear the Petitioner will co-operate in theearly disposal of its appeal and would attend the hearing, as and whenfixed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). As the tax demand ishuge, to safeguard the interest of the Revenue, the Petitioner will file anundertaking not to dispose of and / or alienate its property in termsidentical to that recorded in order dated 3 May 2016 passed by this courtin Writ Petition (Lodging) No.1020/2016 filed by the Petitioner. Thisundertaking would be filed with the Commissioner of Income Tax(Respondent No.3) immediately. This undertaking would continue tillsuch time the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passes an order onthe Petitioner's appeal from the order of assessment dated 31 March 2016and for a period of two weeks thereafter. 5It is made clear that the Respondent Revenue will also notadopt coercive proceedings against the Petitioner till such time as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) disposes of the appeal and for aperiod of two weeks thereafter from the date of its communication. 6It is made clear that the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) will hear the Petitioner's appeal without insisting upon depositof 15%, as directed by the impugned order relying upon the CBDTCircular dated 29 February 2016. It is made clear that we have notexamined the merits of the contentions of the parties. Therefore,Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should not be influenced in anymanner by any observations made herein. 7The petition is disposed of in the above terms. No order as tocosts. (S.C. GUPTE, J.) (M. S. SANKLECHA, J.)