Wp/25178/2019 Of M/S. Sterling Urban Developments Private Limited v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 25 DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’‘/BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATH iWRIT PETITION NO.25178 OF 2019(TIT) BETWEEN M/s Sterling Urban Developments Private Limited,Level 5, Prestige Nebula,No.8, Cubbon Road,Opposite to Income Tax Building,Bengaluru-560 OO1.Represented by its DirectorSri. Raman! Sastrl. ... Petitioner. (By Sri. Udaya Holla, Senior Advocate for —Sri. Vivek Holla, Advocate) AND The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax. Circle-6(1)(2), Bengaluru-560 OO9. .. Respondent. (By Sri. Jeevan J Neeralgi, Advocate) Tnis Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and/22/7 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 22.02.2019 passed by the Income taxTribunal, ‘B’ Bench, Bengaluru, passed (Annexure-G). This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary.Hearing ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made thefollowing: ORDER Tne petitioner nas challenged the order dated22.02.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate.Tribunal,|‘B’|Bench, Bengaluru,InSP.No.59/BANG/2019|inter|alia.chaliengingtne| assessment Order dated 12.10.2018 passed bDyDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(1)(2),.Bengaluru|(Annexure-B)and.theconsequentialDemand Notice issued under Section 156 to the.Income Tax Act 1961(‘Act’ for short). 2 |The petitioner is claiming to be a PrivateLimited Company incorporated under the provision of.the Companies Act, 1956. Relating to the assessmentyear 2014-2015, the appellant has filed its return of 3 Income.ON|29.11.7014.declaringlossOf Rs./4,44,09,458/-. A notice under Section 143(2) ofthe Act was originally issued. Thereafter, a noticeunder Section 129 read with Section 142(1) of the Act.was issued by the respondent. After hearing, theAssessing Officer referred the case to the TransferPricing Officer to re-determine the Arm’s length PriceOf theInternationalTransactionsandspecifiedDomestic Transactions of petitioner with its AssociatedEnterprises and related parties covered under Section40A (2) (b) of the Act. After hearing the petitioner,the Transfer Pricing Officer passed an order underSection 92CA of the Act on 31.10.2017 by making anadjustment of Rs.94,25,45,710/-. The AssessingOfficer passed an assessment order on 12.10.2018based on the Transfer Pricing adjustment made by theTransferOfficerandmadeaTax|demandofRs.9,29,93,360/-. In furtherance to the assessment order, a Demand Notice was also issued. Aggrievedby the same, the petitioner preferred a petition beforethe Dispute Resolution Panel which came to bedisposed of confirming the order of the AssessingOfficer. On further appeal before the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’ for short), the petitioner hadfiled an application for stay of the demand puttingforth the financial hardship faced by the petitionerassessee. The said application has been rejected by.the impugned order dated 22.02.2019. Hence, thiswrit petition. 3.Learned Senior counsel Sri Udaya Hollaappearing for the petitioner would submit that theorder impugned is a non speaking order, no reasonsare assigned by the ITAT in rejecting the said petition,hence, deserves to be set aside. 5 4Learned counsel for the Revenue thoughmade an endeavor to justify the impugned order fairlySubmits that the matter requires reconsideration bythe ITAT. 5.|Having heard the learned counsel forrespective parties and perusing the materials onrecord, it is ex-facie apparent that the order impugnedis a cryptic order passed by the ITAT witnoutassigning valid reasons. No stay petition would havebeendismissed.outrightlyforrecoveryoftheoutstanding demand. Even if the petitioner-assesseemakes a request to grant an absolute stay, the ITAThas to apply its mind to all the possible avenues thatare available for the dispensation of justice. IfabsoluteStay|ISNotpossible,parameters.ofconaitionallstayNastO.De|examinedanaan)appropriate decisionNastO.De|taken|In|thecircumstances of the case. 6 5 4Learned counsel for the Revenue thoughmade an endeavor to justify the impugned order fairlySubmits that the matter requires reconsideration bythe ITAT. 5.|Having heard the learned counsel forrespective parties and perusing the materials onrecord, it is ex-facie apparent that the order impugnedis a cryptic order passed by the ITAT witnoutassigning valid reasons. No stay petition would havebeendismissed.outrightlyforrecoveryoftheoutstanding demand. Even if the petitioner-assesseemakes a request to grant an absolute stay, the ITAThas to apply its mind to all the possible avenues thatare available for the dispensation of justice. IfabsoluteStay|ISNotpossible,parameters.ofconaitionallstayNastO.De|examinedanaan)appropriate decisionNastO.De|taken|In|thecircumstances of the case. 6 6.|For the foregoing reasons, the orderimpugned cannot be approved and the same deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the order at Annexure-Gdated 22.02.2019 is set aside and the proceedings areremanded to ITAT for re-consideration. The ITAT shallre-consider the matter in accordance with law and _decision shall be taken in an expedite mannerpreferably within a period of six weeks from the dateof certified copy of the order. All the rights andcontentions of the parties are left open. The writ petition stands disposed of in terms ofthe above. ag_ Sd/-.JUDGE.