Wp/23767/2021 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.23767/ 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 21.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE R-1L FORTHE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 (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 22.11.2021 issued by the first respondentfor.theAssessmentYear2014-2015altAnnexure-A and similarly, has sougnt for quashing of theimpugned letter dated 10.12.2021 issued by the samerespondentfor.theAssessmentYear2014-2015altAnnexure-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 23.12.2016 for the year Assessment Year. 2014-2015 which remains unpaid. Certain other reliefs arealso sougnt for. 2.|The petitioner submits that tne Assessment Order was passed raising the demand against tne petitioner.The petitioner has filed an appeal. It is submitted that thepetitioner nad sought for stay before the Assessing Officerand tne Assessing Officer as per the order dated 19.07.2018had 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 months, 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 that was granted as per the order dated 19.07.2018 was only for a period of six months or till the disposal of appeal,whichever is earlier and since stay granted had lapsed on18.01.2019, the petitioner was required to make good thebalance outstanding for the Assessment Year 2014-2015.within 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-N 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, the order of stay ought to have beenextended, as it was In no way responsible for the delay indisposal of the appeal. 6.|Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that it.was open for the petitioner to nave sought for extension ofStay. 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-N 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, the order of stay ought to have beenextended, as it was In no way responsible for the delay indisposal of the appeal. 6.|Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that it.was open for the petitioner to nave sought for extension ofStay. 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 nas beenspecified and as the appeal still remained to be concluded,without enteringinto the!technicalities and as the.petitioners eligibility for order of stay has already beendetermined as per the communication at Annexure-C, itwould be in the interests of justice to extend the said orderof stay till disposal of the appeal. 9 |Accordingly, the impugned communication atAnnexure-B is set aside. It is nowever clarified that tnedelay in disposal of appeal if attributable to the conduct ofthe petitioner, in sucn event, the Authority is at liberty toreconsider tne order of stay. Subject to the above observations, the petition is.disposed off VGR Sd/-. JUDGE