Wp/3186/2011 Of M/S. Virupa Townships v. The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOAND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.3186 of 2011 February 15, 2010 Between: M/s.Virupa Townships, Vijayawada, represented by itsManaging Partner, Mr.N.Ramakoti … Petitioner And The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 2, Vijayawada And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOAND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.3186 of 2011 ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) Heard Sri S.Dwarakanath, learned Counsel for the petitioner,and Sri J.V.Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Taxand, at their request, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage ofadmission. The relief sought for in this writ petition is to direct the fifthrespondent not to recover the disputed tax of `2.27 crores pendingdisposal of the appeal before the third respondent i.e., theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Vijayawada; to declare theorder of the second respondent dated 17.1.2011 as null and void andwithout jurisdiction; and to direct the first respondent to pass an order,giving reasons, on the application filed by the petitioner on 17.12.2010. The petitioner is an assessee on the rolls of the secondrespondent. For the assessment year 2008-09, the petitioner filed itsreturn before the second respondent reporting a taxable income of `55,34,960/- and paid tax thereon. An order of assessment was passedon 29.10.2010 aggrieved by which the petitioner has carried the matterin appeal to the third respondent which is still pending. The petitionerfiled an application before the first respondent seeking stay ofcollection of the tax assessed pending disposal of the appeal by thethird respondent. The second respondent, by order dated 17.1.2011,informed the petitioner that, as directed by the first respondent in hisletter dated 20.12.2010, the petitioner’s request for stay was rejected,and that he should pay the demand immediately. Aggrieved therebythe petitioner carried the matter in revision to the fourth respondent andit is admitted by Counsel on either side that the revision stands listedfor hearing on 17.2.2011. The petitioner’s grievance is, however, on the order ofattachment passed by the fifth respondent. They apprehend that, inaddition to the bank accounts already attached, the fifth respondentcould proceed to attach other bank accounts of the petitioner cripplingtheir entire business in the process. Since the petitioner has alreadyfiled a revision against the order dated 17.1.2011 passed by thesecond respondent on the directions of the first respondent, and as thesaid revision is slated for hearing on 17.2.2011 within three days fromtoday, we see no reason at this stage to interdict any action which the fifth respondent may take. It would suffice, for the purpose of disposalof the writ petition itself, that the fourth respondent is directed to hearthe revision on 17.2.2011, pass orders on the same day, and dulycommunicate a copy of the order to the petitioner. While several contentions are urged by Sri S.Dwarakanath inchallenge to the order of the second respondent, communicating theorder of the first respondent, including that the order was passed by thesecond respondent who did not hear the petitioner; that the circularinstructions issued by the Central Board for Direct Taxes (CBDT)would require the matter to be stayed etc., we have not examined anyof the contentions on merits since the fourth respondent is seized ofthe matter and is, pursuant to the aforesaid directions, required todispose of the revision filed by the petitioner on 17.2.2011. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposedof. No costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) _______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J)