Wp/24278/2008 Of M/S. Lavu Educational Society v. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE,ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENTTHE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARIAND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESHRANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 24278 of 2008 Between: M/s. Lavu Educational Society, 4/7, Brodipet, Guntur, Rep by its President Dr. L.Rathaiah ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, 7th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerabagh, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-I) Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerabagh, Hyderabad. 3 The Branch Manager, UCO Bank, 9/1, Arundalpet, P.B. No. 206, Guntur - 522 002. Arundalpet, P.B. No. 206, Guntur - 522 002. .....RESPONDENTSPetition under Article 226 of theconstitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed hereinthe High Court will be pleased to issue a writ,order or direction more particularly one in thenature of Writ of Mandamus declaring theproceeding in P.A.N/G.I.R. No. AAAA L 0584 Hdated 17-10-2008 issued under Section 226 (3) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 bythe 1st respondentto the 3rd respondent for the year AssessmentYear 2000-2001 by attaching the Bank Accountof the petitioner's society is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust and violative of thepetitioner's rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India and passCounsel for the Petitioner:M/SC.KODANDA RAMCounsel for the Respondent No.:MR.B.N.SARMAThe Court made the following : ORAL ORDER:(per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICET.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring theproceedings in PAN/GIR No.AAAA L 0584 Hdated 17.10.2008 issued under Sec.226(3) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 by the first respondent tothe third respondent for the Assessment Year2001-02 by attaching the bank account of thepetitioner’s Society as illegal, arbitrary andviolative of rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, the petitioner filed thiswrit petition. The petitioner company is running numberof educational institutions includingEngineering, Pharmacy and other Post GraduateCourses in the State of Andhra Pradesh and it isexempted from tax under Sec. 10(22) of theIncome Tax Act. While so, after introduction of Sec. 10(23) to the Income Tax Act, thepetitioner made an application to the CBDTseeking exemption, which is pending. Thepetitioner also filed an application under Sec.12A of the Income Tax Act for registration andan application under Sec. 11 seeking exemption,as a charitable institution, which was rejected on23.1.2001, pending amendment, but after thesuggested amendment, it was granted on9.3.2001. While so, for the assessment year2001-2002, the petitioner filed declaring nilincome claiming exemption under Sec. 11 of theAct, but the Assessing Officer served notices on23.3.2007 for two years. The petitioner fileddetailed objections, in reply. However, theAssessing Officer did not accept the contentionsraised by the petitioner and made re-assessments bringing the excess income overexpenditure to tax. Aggrieved thereby, thepetitioner filed appeals before the secondrespondent, which are pending. Pending appeals,the petitioner also filed applications seeking stayof the collection of tax, before the firstrespondent, which was rejected by order dated21.8.2008. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitionerand the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. Heard the learned counsel for the petitionerand the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. It is submitted by the learned counsel forthe petitioner that though several contentionswere raised before the first respondent, the firstrespondent has refused to grant stay and issuednotice dated 17.10.2008 to the third respondentBank for recovery of Rs.2,10,59,495/-. It isfurther contended by the learned counsel for thepetitioner that pending appeals before theSecond Respondent, the Bank Accounts of thepetitioner are attached and if the appeals are notdisposed of expeditiously, irreparable loss andinjury would be occasioned by the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case,without adverting to merits or otherwise of thecontentions raised by the learned counsel for thepetitioner, we are of the opinion that the writpetition can be disposed of at the stage ofadmission directing the second respondent todispose of the appeals preferred by thepetitioner as expeditiously as possible not laterthan 30.1.2009, in accordance with law. With this direction, the writ petition isdisposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari November 11, 2008MAS _______________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan