Wp/23766/2021 Of Rashtreeya Sikshana Samithi Trust v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20 DAY OF JANUARY 2022. BEFORE| THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV.$WRIT PETITION No.23766/ 2021 (IT) BETWEEN: RASHTREEYA SIKSHANA SAMITHI TRUSTPAN: AAATRO/58AHAVING ITS OFFICE AT:RV TEACHERS COLLEGE BUILDING2[ND|]BLOCK, JAYANAGAR|BENGALURU - 560 O11REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITSHON BLE SECRETARY, SHRI A.V.S. MURTHY. |.. PETITIONER. (BY SRI SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADVOCATE) 1.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROADBENGALURU - 560 O77.BENGALURU - 560 O77. 2.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE,MISSION ROADBENGALURU - 560 O27/.MISSION ROADBENGALURU - 560 O27/. 3.ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE ROOM NO.606, 6 FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, P. KALINGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 O27. .. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 2276 &22/7 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THEIMPUGNED LETTER DATED 18.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE R-1L FORTHE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.| THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner has filed the present writ petition|seeking for issuance of appropriate writ to quash theimpugned jetter dated 18.11.2021 issued by the first respondentfor.theAssessmentYear2015-2016altAnnexure-A and similarly, has sougnt for quashing of theimpugned letter dated 10.12.2021 issued by the samerespondentfor.theAssessmentYear2015-2016altAnnexure-B and nas further sougnt for restraining tne firstrespondent from recovering or initiating any proceedings forrecovery of demand of tax and interests arising from theAssessment Order 20.12.2017 (as rectified) for the year Assessment Year 2015-2016 which remains unpaid. Certainother reliefs are also sought for. 2.|The petitioner submits that tne Assessment Order was passed and subsequently the same came to berectified raising the demand against the petitioner. Thepetitioner nas filed an appeal. It is submitted tnat thepetitioner nad sought for stay before the Assessing Officerand the Assessing Officer as per the order dated 19.07.2018nad granted stay of collection of demand, subject topayment of 20% of total disputed demand. It was furtherprovided that stay of collection of demand was granted asper CBDT's Instruction No.1914 in O.M. No.404/93-ITCC|dated 22.02.2016 read witn modification dated 31.0/.201/.(as referred at Annexure-E), till the disposal of the firstappeal or upto six montns whichever is earlier. It Issubmitted that the appeal is still pending consideration andis not disposed off. 3.)In the interregnum, notice of demand has beenissued as per the impugned communication at Annexure-B. It was stipulated that the stay of collection of demand thatwas granted as per the order dated 19.07.2018 was only fora period of six months or till the disposal of appeal,whichever is earlier and since stay granted nad lapsed on18.01.2019, the petitioner was required to make good thebalance outstanding for the Assessment Year 2015-2016within ten days. 4Learned counsel for the petitioner submits thatthe order of stay ought to nave been extended wnen theappeal was not concluded. He relies upon the OfficeMemorandum at Annexure-P dated 29.02.7016 and submits.tnat after expiry of reasonable period, tne Authority nadrignt to review the order passed. | 5.|It is further submitted that as the appeal was notdisposed off, tne order of stay ougnt to nave beenextended, as it was in no way responsible for the delay indisposal of the appeal. 6.|Learned counsel] for tne Revenue submits tnat that it was open for the petitioner to have sought forextension of the stay. J.Heard botn sides. 8 _In light of the admitted facts and noticing that 4Learned counsel for the petitioner submits thatthe order of stay ought to nave been extended wnen theappeal was not concluded. He relies upon the OfficeMemorandum at Annexure-P dated 29.02.7016 and submits.tnat after expiry of reasonable period, tne Authority nadrignt to review the order passed. | 5.|It is further submitted that as the appeal was notdisposed off, tne order of stay ougnt to nave beenextended, as it was in no way responsible for the delay indisposal of the appeal. 6.|Learned counsel] for tne Revenue submits tnat that it was open for the petitioner to have sought forextension of the stay. J.Heard botn sides. 8 _In light of the admitted facts and noticing that the order of stay was subject to condition regardingpayment of 20% of the outstanding demand which has beenspecified and as the appeal still remained to be concludedwithout entering.into tne!tecnnicalities and as tne.petitioners eligibility for order of stay has already beendetermined as per the communication at Annexure-'C, itwould De in the interests of justice to extend the said orderof stay till disposal of the appeal. 9 |Accordingly, the impugned communication at Annexure-B is set aside. It is however clarified that thedelay in disposal of appeal if attributable to the conduct ofthe petitioner, in sucn event, the Authority is at liberty toreconsider the order of stay. �� <��(��������������*�������*������'��������������������������������� ���������� ��������������������������� ����