Wp/24283/2008 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 : 24283 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. Basheerabagh, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-I) Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerabagh, Hyderabad. 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. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of theconstitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed hereinthe High Court will be pleased to issue order ordirection or a wrti more particularly one in thenature of Writ of Mandamus declaring theproceedings 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 by the 1st respondentto the 3rd respondent for the year Assessment Year 2001-2002 by attaching the Bank Account ofthe 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 H dated17.10.2008 issued under Sec.226(3) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 by the first respondent to the thirdrespondent for the Assessment Year 2000-01 byattaching the bank account of the petitioner’sSociety as illegal, arbitrary and violative of rightsguaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of theConstitution, the petitioner filed this writpetition. The petitioner company is running number ofeducational institutions including Engineering,Pharmacy and other Post Graduate Courses in theState of Andhra Pradesh and it is exempted fromtax under Sec. 10(22) of the Income Tax Act. While so, after introduction of Sec. 10(23) to theIncome Tax Act, the petitioner made anapplication to the CBDT seeking exemption,which is pending. The petitioner also filed anapplication under Sec. 12A of the Income Tax Actfor registration and an application under Sec. 11seeking exemption, as a charitable institution,which was rejected on 23.1.2001, pendingamendment, but after the suggested amendment,it was granted on 9.3.2001. While so, for theassessment year 2000-2001, the petitioner filedreturns with nil income claiming exemption underSec. 11 of the Act, but the Assessing Officerserved notices on 23.3.2007 for two years. Thepetitioner filed detailed objections, in reply.However, the Assessing Officer did not accept thecontentions raised 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 petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel forCommercial Taxes. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel forCommercial Taxes. It is submitted by the learned counsel for thepetitioner that though several contentions wereraised 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 is furthercontended by the learned counsel for thepetitioner that pending appeals before the SecondRespondent, the Bank Accounts of the petitionerare attached and if the appeals are not disposedof expeditiously, irreparable loss and injury wouldbe 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 the petitioneras expeditiously as possible not later than30.1.2009, in accordance with law. With this direction, the writ petition isdisposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ November 11, 2008MAS Justice T.Meena Kumari _______________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan