Wp/39454/2015 Of Smt.katragadda Shanta Kumari v. The Income Tax Officer

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Writ Petition No.39454 of 2015 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) Heard Ms.Anjali Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, and SriK.Raji Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Income TaxDepartment, and, with their consent, the writ petition is beingdisposed of at the stage of admission. The relief sought for in this writ petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamusdeclaring the order passed by the 1[st] respondent dated 24.04.2015as illegal, unjustified and contrary to the provisions of law. On an assessment order being passed on 24.02.2015 subjecting thepetitioner to tax towards short term capital gains, the petitionerpreferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax. She alsofiled an application to the Assessing Authority requesting him to grantstay pending disposal of the appeal. Section 220(6) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) provides that, where an assesseehas presented an appeal under Section 246 or 246A, the AssessingOfficer, in his discretion and subject to such conditions as he maythink fit to impose in the circumstances of the case, treat theassessee as not being in default in respect of the amount in disputein the appeal, even though the time for payment has expired, as longas such appeal remains undisposed of. The power conferred on the Assessing Authority, under Section220(6) of the Act, is to treat the assessee as not being in default inrespect of the amount in dispute. For so treating the assessee, theAssessing Authority is empowered to impose any conditions, whichhe may consider fit to impose. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 24.04.2015, it is clearthat the petitioner had requested for grant of stay of collection of thetax for Rs.20,27,530/- on the ground that she was not in a position topay such a huge demand, as she was passing through acutefinancial difficulties. The Assessing Authority held that, with regardsher financial position, the petitioner did not enclose any evidence insupport of the acute financial difficulties being faced by her; merefiling of an appeal was not a valid ground for stay of collection of tax; the petitioner did not co-operate in completing the assessmentproceedings; she did not even file her return of income for theassessment year 2010-11, though notice under Section 148 of theAct was issued and served on her on 14.03.2014; and, in thesecircumstances, her case did not fall for grant of stay of collection ofthe taxes. The petitioner’s stay application was rejected. The order under challenge in this writ petition does not suffer anylegal infirmity necessitating interference in proceedings under Article226 of the Constitution of India. Having sold the subject property andhaving put the vendee in possession thereof as early as on12.11.2010, it is not open to the petitioner to now contend that shehas not encashed the cheques received from the vendees and,consequently, she should be granted stay of collection of disputedtax. Failure to encash the cheques does not absolve the petitioner ofher liability to pay tax. As has been rightly held by the AssessingAuthority, the petitioner did not furnish proof of financial difficulties sheclaimed to be facing. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly,dismissed. The petitioner filed an appeal on 24.04.2015 beyond the period oflimitation of 30 days. The delay in preferring the appeal is said to be24 days. Suffice it if the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) isdirected to hear and decide the petition, to condone the delay in filingthe appeal, with utmost expedition. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also standdismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: 04.12.2015 JSU _____________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND The petitioner filed an appeal on 24.04.2015 beyond the period oflimitation of 30 days. The delay in preferring the appeal is said to be24 days. Suffice it if the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) isdirected to hear and decide the petition, to condone the delay in filingthe appeal, with utmost expedition. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also standdismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: 04.12.2015 JSU _____________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Writ Petition No.39454 of 2015 JSU Date: 04.12.2015