Wp/50368/2018 Of M/S Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THER 1 DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE: THR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICK S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.50368;50369/2018 (TIT) BETWEEN: M/s. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREADEVELOPMENT BOARD.#49, 4[‘T]&5 FLOORS, KHANIJA BHAVANRACK COURSEH ROADBBNGALURU-560001|REP. BY ITSCEO & EMDdDr. N.SHIVASHANKARA, IAS,9/O SRI NINGE GOWDAAGED ABOUT 47 YEARS]. _.. PETITIONER| IBY SMT SUSHMA RAVINDRA, ADV. FOR ©SRI CHYTHANYA.K.K., ADV.| AND: 1.|THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, 6 FLOORUNITY BUILDING ANNE X5MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU-560027.OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, 6 FLOORUNITY BUILDING ANNE X5MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU-560027. oD THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX '[‘T]FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXEMISSION ROAD, BENGALURU-560027. ...RESPONDENTS—MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU-560027. ...RESPONDENTS— IBY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.| THERESE WRIT PRTITIONS ARB FILED UNDER ARTICLE226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO)QUASH AS FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED BY AN)APPROPRIATE.WRITOR|ORDER|IN|TH ENATUREOF| -9.- CHRRTIORARI OR OTHRRWISHKH THR IMPUGNBD LETTBKER D24.10.2018 ISSUED BY THERE LEARNED FIRST RESPONDENT TTHE BRANCH MANAGER OF CORPORATION BANK, BENGALURUFOR THE AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,THER COURT MADEB THR FOLLOWING ORDER IntheseWritpetitions,theaAsSSsSE€haschallenged the order of the attachment of bank accountdated 24.10.2018 for the recovery of dues relating to theassessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 and also theletter issued by the Assessing Officer dated 02.04.2018directing the assessee to pay 20% of the outstandingdemand during the pendency of the appeal before theCIT |A]. oD Learned counsel for the respondents has.filed a memo submitting that during the pendency ofthe writ petitions, the appeal pending before the CIT [A]has been disposed of by substantially upholding theorder of the assessmet for both the assessment yearsreferred to above. The stay application before the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax |Exemptions| isalso been disposed of as not maintainable by orderdated 14.09.2018. In view of the order of the CIT [A], theorder passed by the Assessing Officer directing theassessee to pay 20% of the outstanding demand duringthe pendency of the appeal has merged with the order ofthe CIT [A]. It is submitted that against the order of theCIT {A}, the assessee/petitioner has an alternative andefficacious statutory appeal before the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal |'ITAT' for short]. Hence, the petitionsare rendered intructuous. | 3.|Copies of the order of the Additional CIT [E]dated 14.09.2018 and CIT |A| dated 31.12.2018 areproduced along with the memo. 4Learned counsel for the petitioner wouldsubmit that the appeals have been already filed by thepetitioner before the ITAT challenging the order of theCIT |A] dated 31.12.2018 and steps are also taken to -4- move for the stay of demand. However, she submits thatthe challenge to the order of the attachment of bankaccount for the recovery of dues for the assessmentyears in question survives for consideration. 5 |Having heard the learned counsel for theparties and perusing the material on record, it is not indispute that the appeal preferred by the petitioneragainst the assessment years in question has beendisposed of and the appeals are preferred by theassessee before the ITAT. In such circumstances, the)challenge made to the order of the Assessing Officer inas much as the stay application is concerned, does notsurvive for consideration. 6. However, in view of the appeals already saidto have been filed by the petitioner/assessee, theassessee is at liberty to move before the ITAT for stay ofdemand/coercive recovery in terms of the demand. -5- Hence, the writ petition is rendered infructuous and accordingly stands dismissed, keeping open all the 5 |Having heard the learned counsel for theparties and perusing the material on record, it is not indispute that the appeal preferred by the petitioneragainst the assessment years in question has beendisposed of and the appeals are preferred by theassessee before the ITAT. In such circumstances, the)challenge made to the order of the Assessing Officer inas much as the stay application is concerned, does notsurvive for consideration. 6. However, in view of the appeals already saidto have been filed by the petitioner/assessee, theassessee is at liberty to move before the ITAT for stay ofdemand/coercive recovery in terms of the demand. -5- Hence, the writ petition is rendered infructuous and accordingly stands dismissed, keeping open all the rights and contentions of the parties to urge before thejurisdictional ITAT. NC. Sd/-.JUDGE