Wp/31073/2019 Of Smt. Meera Srikant Meharwade v. Deputy/ Asst Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THER 2 DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE: THR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICK S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.31073/2019 (T IT) BETWEEN: SMI.MBEEBERA SRIKANT MBHARWAAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,NO.9, KHODAY HOUSE, |SESHADRI ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR,BANGALORE - 560 OOO. _. PRTITIONBR (BY SRI SHANKAR A., SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI S.SUKUMAR, ADV.) AND: 1.DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONER |OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 5(2)(1)+ FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, |80 FEET ROAD, 6[‘T]BLOCK,KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 O95.OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 5(2)(1)+ FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, |80 FEET ROAD, 6[‘T]BLOCK,KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 O95. 2.THERE PRL. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX BENGALURU-5,BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD,# BLOCK, KORAMANGALA|BENGALURU - 560 O95.INCOME TAX BENGALURU-5,BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD,# BLOCK, KORAMANGALA|BENGALURU - 560 O95. 3.THERE COMMISSIONER OF [INCOME T(APPEALS)-5, 7[‘L]FLOOR, ©BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD,# BLOCK, KORAMANGALA|BENGALURU - 560 O95.(APPEALS)-5, 7[‘L]FLOOR, ©BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD,# BLOCK, KORAMANGALA|BENGALURU - 560 O95. 4.TAX RECOVERY OFFICER — 5,5[‘T]FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING80 FEET ROAD, 6 BLOCK,5[‘T]FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING80 FEET ROAD, 6 BLOCK, -9.- KORAMANGALA> BBNGALURU - 560 O95. ~ RBSPONDENTS (BY SRI JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND22/ OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THEATTACHMENT NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 226[3] OF THE.INCOMETAXACT, BY|THER-]|DATED19.04.2018JANNEXURE-A| FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-20105. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER Learned counsel Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralgi acceptsnotice for the respondents. 2 |The petitioner, an assessee under the)provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 |'Act’ for short] is"before this Court challenging the attachment noticeissued under Section 226/3] of the Act and the orderpassed by the respondent No.1 dated 05.06.2018 aswell as the notices issued by the respondent No.4 dated10.07.2019 and 17.07.2019|inter alia. seeking adirection to the respondent No.4 to dispose of the appealagainst the order under Section 143]/3] of the Act by the -3- respondentNo.4.OT]30.12.2016relatingTOthe.assessment year 2014-15 within a time frame. 3.|The assessment orders were concluded|under Section 143]3] of the Act by the respondent No.1.on 30.12.2016. Being aggrieved by the tax liabilitycreated on the additions made to the returned income,the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondentNo.3. In the meantime, the respondent No.1 has issuedthe notice of demand under Section 196 demanding asum of Rs.11,96,21,/60/- including interest undersection 234A, B, C and 234D of the Act. The petitionerhas filed an application before the respondent No.1 tostay the collection of demand. The respondent No.1 has—insisted the petitioner to pay 15% of the outstandingdemand against which the petitioner had approachedthe second respondent to grant absolute stay tilldisposal of the appeal pending before the respondentNo.3. The second respondent has disposed of the said -4- application vide order dated 17.08.2017 and directedthe petitioner to pay the installment of Rs.10,00,000/-—every month from August 2017 to December 2017 andstayed the balance demand subject to review ofdirections in the last week of December 2017. 4It is the contention of the petitioner that theinstallments as per the directions of the respondentNo.2 has been paid. However, the respondent No.2 hasissued communication to review the stay order, and thesaid proceedings are pending consideration before therespondent No.2. That being the position, in spite ofreview of stay application is pending for considerationbefore the respondent No.2, the respondent No.1 has.issued the notice under Section 226|3] of the Act andattached the petitioner’s bank account. 5.|Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. -5- 4It is the contention of the petitioner that theinstallments as per the directions of the respondentNo.2 has been paid. However, the respondent No.2 hasissued communication to review the stay order, and thesaid proceedings are pending consideration before therespondent No.2. That being the position, in spite ofreview of stay application is pending for considerationbefore the respondent No.2, the respondent No.1 has.issued the notice under Section 226|3] of the Act andattached the petitioner’s bank account. 5.|Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. -5- 6.|It is prima facie apparent that during thependency of the appeal before the CIT [Appeals] —respondent No.3, notice is issued by the respondentNo.1 to review the stay order granted and during thesaid proceedings, recovery proceedings being initiated,the petitioner is compelled to approach this Court. TS|In the circumstances, it was obligatory onthe part of the respondent No.3 -— CIT [Appeals] todispose of the appeals in accordance with law in anexpedite manner in view of the matter being alreadyheard. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to directthe respondent No.3 to pass the orders in accordancewith law in an expedite manner in any event not laterthan four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copyof the order. Till the passing of the order by therespondentNo.3CIT.|Appeals},TlOTCCOVCTY "�#�"�� >376115;4=9�9A2::�E1�;4;?;2?15�EF�?A1�319>74514?9�� �351315�266735;4=:F�� �;?A�?A1�2@73192;5�7E913<2?;749�245�5;316?;749�� G3;?�>1?;?;74�9?2459�5;9>7915�7@�� ���� ����� �����