Wp/27469/2013 Of M/S. National Academy Of Construction v. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax (Exemptions)-I

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINIAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.27469 OF 2013 Date: 30.09.2013 Between: M/s. National Academy of ConstructionA society registered under the Andhra Pradesh(Telangana) Area Public Societies ActHaving its registered office at NAC CampusIzzat Nagar Village, Kondapur PostSerilingampally MandalHyderabadAndhra PradeshRep. by its Director GeneralSri Pradip Kumar Agarwal And …Petitioner The Assistant Director of Income Tax (Exemptions)-IIII Floor, Ayakar BhavanBasheer BaghHyderabad …Respondent THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINIAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.27469 OF 2013 ORDER:(Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G.Rohini) The petitioner filed his return for the Assessment Year 2010-11claiming exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (forshort “The Act”). The assessment was completed vide order dated28.03.2013 determining the tax payable as Rs.13,93,37,520/- and charging interest of Rs.3,68,83,460/- under Section 234B of the Act. The amounts payable by the petitioner towards the demand forthe Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10 were also due and on arequest made by the petitioner, he was granted the facility of paymentin instalments by order dated 23.07.2013 according to which thepetitioner shall pay Rs.2 Crores by 31.07.2013 and continue to payRs.3 Crores per month starting from August 2013 to March 2014 tillliquidation of entire demand together with interest on or before 25[th] ofevery month. It is claimed that the petitioner paid all the outstandingtax demanded upto the Assessment Year 2009-10, however for themonth of August 2013 a request was made to grant exemption sincethe time left to mobilize the funds was very short. Even thereafter thepetitioner paid Rs.2 Crores and another sum of Rs.5 Crores for themonth of September by 05.09.2013. In spite of the same the 2[nd]respondent by letter dated 10.09.2013 directed the petitioner to pay theentire demand not only for the years 2008-09 and 2009-10 but also forthe Assessment Year 2010-11 to be cleared on or before 20.09.2013. Aggrieved by the same the present writ petition is filed. It is contended by Sri S. Ravi, the learned Senior Counselappearing for the petitioner that the impugned letter insisting upon thepetitioner to pay the total tax demanded immediately is arbitrary andillegal since the petitioner is a bona fide tax payer and has beendischarging its tax liability diligently. It is submitted by the learnedSenior Counsel that the petitioner cleared the total outstandingdemand for the Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10 and evenfor the Assessment Year 2010-11 Rs.4.20 Crores was already paidand therefore for payment of the balance outstanding the respondentought to have permitted the petitioner to pay in instalments. Thelearned Senior Counsel has placed before this Court the details ofpayments that were already made by the petitioner and submitted thatthe petitioner is ready and willing to pay the outstanding amount inmonthly instalments of Rs.1 Crore each. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent it is stated thatthe petitioner has cleared Rs.6,96,68,760/, and the balance pending isRs.6,96,68,760/. So far as the petitioner’s contention that for theAssessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 Rs.1.23 Crores and Rs.1.40Crores respectively was deducted by way of TDS and if the same isadjusted towards the demand for the Assessment Year 2010-11 thebalance payable would be only Rs.4.33 Crores is concerned, it isstated in the counter-affidavit that the TDS amounts cannot beadjusted towards the arrears of demand in respect of the AssessmentYear 2010-11 and the petitioner’s contention is untenable. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent it is stated thatthe petitioner has cleared Rs.6,96,68,760/, and the balance pending isRs.6,96,68,760/. So far as the petitioner’s contention that for theAssessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 Rs.1.23 Crores and Rs.1.40Crores respectively was deducted by way of TDS and if the same isadjusted towards the demand for the Assessment Year 2010-11 thebalance payable would be only Rs.4.33 Crores is concerned, it isstated in the counter-affidavit that the TDS amounts cannot beadjusted towards the arrears of demand in respect of the AssessmentYear 2010-11 and the petitioner’s contention is untenable. Having heard Sri J.V. Prasad, the learned Standing Counsel forthe Income-tax Department appearing for the respondent and havingperused the material available on record, we do not find any substancein the petitioner’s claim to grant credit for TDS of the AssessmentYears2012-13 and 2013-14. In the facts and circumstances of thecase, we are also not inclined to accept the petitioner’s request togrant instalments @ Rs.1 Crore per month. However, having regard to the plea that the petitioner is facingserious financial hardship, we consider it appropriate to permit thepetitioner to clear the entire outstanding amounts in three monthlyinstalments as under: 1)The first instalment of Rs.2 Crores shall be paid by31.10.201331.10.2013 2)The second instalment of Rs.2 Crores shall be paidby 30.11.2013; andby 30.11.2013; and 3)The entire balance payable shall be paid by31.12.201331.12.2013 The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in thisWrit Petition, shall stand closed. ____________ G.ROHINI, J ______________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: 30.09.2013 Mva