Wp/874/2020 Of Aditya Birla Private Equity Trust v. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward 20 (1) (1) Mumbai And 4 Ors

Digitally signedby Shalikram P.ShalikramBoreyP. BoreyDate:2020.03.0211:50:08 +0530 8wp418-20.doc spb/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L.) NO. 418 OF 2020 Aditya Birla Private Equity Trust … Petitioner. V/s. The Income Tax OfÏcer, Ward 20(1)(1),Mumbai & Ors. ... Respondents. --- Ms. Priyanka Jain, Advocate a/w. Mr. Atul K. Jasani forthe Petitioner. Mr. Sham Walve, Advocate a/w. Mr. Pritish Chatterjee forthe Respondents. --- CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN AND MILIND N. JADHAV,JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 14, 2020. PC : 1Heard Ms. Priyanka Jain, learned counsel forthe Petitioner and Mr. Sham Walve, learned standingcounsel Revenue for the Respondents. 2By filing this Petition under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, Petitioner seeks quashing of theimpugned order dated 30.01.2020 passed by theIncome Tax OfÏcer, Ward 20(1)(1), Mumbai, grantingconditional stay to the demand raised. 1/3 spb/ 3Shorn of details essential facts may bebriefly noted. For the assessment year 2017-18,Income Tax OfÏcer, Ward 20(1)(1), Mumbai /Assessment OfÏcer assessed the Petitioner by his orderunder section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(briefly, “the Act” hereinafter) on 27.12.2019, wherebythe income of the Petitioner was determined at Rs.1,64,60,88,900.00 resulting in a demand of Rs.77,81,15,667.00. Petitioner filed application on15.01.2020 for stay of the demand raised. By the orderdated 30.01.2020 passed under section 220(3) of theAct, the Assessing OfÏcer directed the Petitioner topay 20% of the demand by way of five instalments asmentioned in the impugned order, pursuant to whichrecovery of the balance demand would be stayed till30.09.2020 or to be reconsidered thereafter. 4On a query by the court, learned counsel forthe Petitioner submits that against the aforesaid order ofassessment dated 27.12.2019, Petitioner has preferredappeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai on 15.01.2020. 5After hearing learned counsel for the partiesand on due consideration, we are of the view that it 2/3 spb/ 8wp418-20.doc would be in the interest of justice if the first appellateauthority i.e. the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)decides the appeal of the Petitioner expeditiously andtill such time to keep in abeyance the demand raised interms of the assessment order dated 27.12.2019. 6Accordingly, we direct that the appeal filedby the Petitioner be taken on board by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and to decidethe same within a period of eight weeks from the dateof the receipt of an authenticated copy of this orderand during the interregnum there shall be stay of therecovery of the demand pursuant to the assessmentorder dated 27.12.2019. 7Writ Petition is disposed of in the aboveterms. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN, J.)….. 3/3