Wp/6377/2016 Of Sri Bhramaramba Mallikarjunaswamy Vari v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANAND THE HON’BLR SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.6377 OF 2016 ORDER: {Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan} Heard Sri K.Vasantkumar, learned counsel for the petitionerand Sri J.V.Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel for IncomeTax and, with their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at thestage of admission. Sri Bhramaramba Mallikarjunaswamy Vari Devasthanam,Srisailam has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court questioning theinaction of the Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions) in notpassing any orders on their petition dated 30.09.2014 whereby theysought stay of collection of the disputed tax pending disposal of theappeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kurnoolwhich were preferred against the order of re-assessment dated28.03.2014, for the assessment year 2005-06. Sri K.Vasantkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, woulddraw attention of this Court to the guidelines issued by the CentralBoard of Direct Tax in Instruction No.1914 F.No.404/72/93 ITCCdated 02.12.1993 from CBDT, more particularly to clause B thereof,which relates to stay petitions. Clause B (ii) stipulates that, wherestay petitions are made to the authorities higher than the AssessingOfficer (DC/CIT/CC), it is the responsibility of the higher authoritiesto dispose of the petitions without any delay, and in any event withintwo weeks of the receipt of the petitions and such a decision shouldbe communicated to the assessee and the Assessing Officerimmediately. The submission of Sri K.Vasantkumar, learned counsel forthe petitioner, is that, while the petitioner had submitted a petition tothe Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions) who is an officer in the cadre of a Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, the saidapplication has not been disposed of till date, though nearly oneand half years has elapsed since then. While there is no specificprovision in the Income Tax Act, other than Section 220 (6) of theAct, which confers power to grant stay pending disposal of theappeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), it is whollyunnecessary for us to examine whether or not the Director Generalof Income Tax (Exemptions) can exercise the power to grant staypending disposal of the appeal, as both Sri K.Vasantkumar, learnedcounsel for the petitioner and Sri J.V.Prasad, learned SeniorStanding Counsel for Income Tax, would agree that, in terms of theCBDT guidelines dated 02.12.1993, the Director General of IncomeTax (Exemptions) can entertain stay petitions, seeking stay ofcollection of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal. Instead of keeping pending the Writ Petition on the file of thisCourt, we consider it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petitiondirecting the third respondent to consider the application filed by thepetitioner for grant of stay of collection of the disputed tax pendingdisposal of the appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Kurnool, at the earliest, and in any event not later thanthree (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thepetitioner is permitted to communicate a copy of this order to thethird respondent. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall beno order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shallstand closed. _______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) ___________________________ (M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J) 1[st] March 2016 Note: Issue CC tomorrowB/O RRB