Wp/18023/2024 Of Localcube Commerce Private Limited v. The Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

Digitally signedby VIJAYA PLocation: HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV -WRIT PETITION NO. 18023 OF 2024 (TIT) BETWEEN: 1. LOCALCUBE COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY GOVERNED BY THE A COMPANY GOVERNED BY THE COMPANIES ACT 2013 HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE AT: 14-F-1, KUMBALAGODU INDUSTRIAL AREA 2 PHASE, KUMBALAGODU BENGALURU - 560 074 REPRSENTED HEREIN BY ITS DIRECTOR SHRI SRIDHAR GUNDAIAH … PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHARADWAJ SHESHADRI, ADVOCATE A/W SRI SANDEEP HUILGOL., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTER 2 FLOOR, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM NEW DELHI - 110 003 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 4(1)(1), BENGALURU CIRCLE 4(1)(1), BENGALURU BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD 6 BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095 3. THE COMMISSONER OF INCOMET-TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELSSS APPEAL CENTER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT 2 FLOOR, JAWARHALL NEHRU STADIUM NEW DELHI - 110 003 4. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 BENGALURU BENGALURU BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD 6 BLOCK, KORAMANAGALA BENGALURU - 560 095 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO i) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD. 20.04.2021 BEARING DIN ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2021-22/1032540848(1) PASSED BY THE R-1 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 (ANNEXURE A-1) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Petitioner has sought for setting aside of the assessment order at Annexure-A1 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. - 3 - 2.It is the case of the petitioner that insofar as the assessment year 2018-19 is concerned, petitioner has filed an appeal against the order passed by the 1[st]respondent which appeal is pending consideration before the 3[rd] respondent. It is further submitted that the petitioner has made representation for early disposal of the appeal at Annexure-R which is still pending consideration and no orders are passed regarding the same. 3.It is further submitted that the demands raised are huge and the financial implications of such demand would have the effect on the solvency of the petitioner. It is further submitted that as the petitioner has good case on merits, a direction may be passed to the Appellate Authority to dispose off the appeal expeditiously. It is also pointed out that insofar as the application seeking stay, request for stay has been rejected by order at Annexure-X which is not a speaking order and contrary to the guidelines applicable in the case of consideration of - 4 - request for stay as at Annexures-S and T. It is further submitted that in terms of the applicable circular, in the event the Authority finds it appropriate, reference may be made to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for reducing the amount to be deposited while considering the stay. 4.Sri. E. I. Sanmathi, learned counsel submits that the request of the petitioner for early hearing may be considered by the Authority appropriately. 5.It must be noticed that admittedly representation at Annexure-R has been made for early disposal of the matter and no order is passed. It would be appropriate to direct respondent No.3 to pass appropriate orders fixing the tentative date, subject to the pendency of cases before him and the peculiar facts of this case as made out in the petition. 6.In light of the observations made above, without prejudice to the direction made above, the order - 5 - 4.Sri. E. I. Sanmathi, learned counsel submits that the request of the petitioner for early hearing may be considered by the Authority appropriately. 5.It must be noticed that admittedly representation at Annexure-R has been made for early disposal of the matter and no order is passed. It would be appropriate to direct respondent No.3 to pass appropriate orders fixing the tentative date, subject to the pendency of cases before him and the peculiar facts of this case as made out in the petition. 6.In light of the observations made above, without prejudice to the direction made above, the order - 5 - at Annexure-X is set aside and the 2[nd] respondent is directed to reconsider the request for stay appropriately and in the event, case is made out for reduction of deposit, to follow the procedure prescribed under Annexures-S and T. Petitioner is at liberty to file written submissions in support of his request for consideration of stay which may be considered appropriately. 7.Accordingly, petition is disposed off. Sd/- JUDGE VP