Wp/931/2020 Of Humuza Consultants v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle - 23 (1) And 4 Ors

Priya Soparkar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.845 OF 2020 Humuza Consultants … PetitionerV/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle -23(1), Mumbai and ors.… Respondents --- Mr.Nishant Thakkar with Mr.Hiten Chande i/by M/s PDS Legal,Advocate for the Petitioner.None for the Respondents. --- CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : MARCH 17, 2020 P.C.:- 1.Heard Mr.Thakkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.None appears for the respondents, though it is submitted byMr.Thakkar that petitioner had served the respondents,whereafter affidavit of service has been filed. 2.By filing this petition under Articles 226/227 of theConstitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to therespondents not to take any coercive steps for recovery ofdemand in terms of the notice of demand dated 29[th]December, 2019 and for a direction to respondent No.1 torelease the three bank accounts of the petitioner, one withBank of India bearing No.012220110000449 and the other Priya Soparkar 2 two with ICICI Bank bearing Nos.039305008509 and039313011525. 3.After hearing Mr.Thakkar and on going through thematerials on record, we find that petitioner is a partnershipfirm assessed to income tax jurisdiction under respondentNo.1. Petitioner derives income from interest earned fromfixed deposits, dividend on shares and profit on sale ofshares. For the assessment year under consideration i.e.2017-18, petitioner filed e-return of income on 28[th] July,2017 declaring total income of Rs.68,33,07,135.00 andexempt income of Rs.39,75,96,305.00. The return wasprocessed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961and by the assessment order dated 29[th] December, 2019,respondent No.1 as the Assessing Officer added back anamount of Rs.3,93,39,28,268.00 to the income of thepetitioner under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(briefly "the Act" hereinafter) as unexplained credit. Thus, theassessed income was quantified at Rs.4,61,72,35,403.00. 4.Respondent No.1 on the same day i.e. on 29[th]December, 2019 issued notice of demand to the petitionerunder Section 156 of the Act calling upon it to pay a sum ofRs.3,68,82,72,123.00. 5.According to the petitioner, it has filed an application forstay of demand before respondent No.1 on 3[rd] March, 2020raising various grounds therein as to why the demandshould be stayed. 6. It is further stated that aggrieved by the order ofassessment, petitioner has preferred an appeal before theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai ("CIT(Appeals)" for short hereinafter) i.e. respondent No.4 on 6thMarch,2020 bearing acknowledgment No. 318086151060320. 7. Grievance of the petitioner is that without taking anydecision on the stay application of the petitioner, respondentNo.1 has attached the above three bank accounts of thepetitioner by issuing garnishee notices under Section 226(3)of the Act. Not only that, respondent No.1 has withdrawn anamount of Rs.1,29,42,486.00 from the above three bankaccounts to the prejudice of the petitioner. 8.Faced with such a situation, the present writ petition hasbeen filed. 9.After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and ongoing through the materials on record, we feel that it wouldmeet the ends of justice if respondent No.1 takes a decisionon the stay application of the petitioner in accordance withlaw within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of anauthenticated copy of this order. 10.Ordered accordingly. 11.Till the stay application is decided, there shall be nofurther withdrawal of money from the above three bank Priya Soparkar 4 902 wpl 845-20-o 8.Faced with such a situation, the present writ petition hasbeen filed. 9.After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and ongoing through the materials on record, we feel that it wouldmeet the ends of justice if respondent No.1 takes a decisionon the stay application of the petitioner in accordance withlaw within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of anauthenticated copy of this order. 10.Ordered accordingly. 11.Till the stay application is decided, there shall be nofurther withdrawal of money from the above three bank Priya Soparkar 4 902 wpl 845-20-o accounts of the petitioner and whatever withdrawals havebeen made, the same shall be subject to such order that maybe passed by respondent No.1 in terms of the present order.Attachment of the bank accounts would also be subject tooutcome of such order that may be passed by respondentNo.1. 12.Petitioner would also be at liberty to move respondentNo.4 for early hearing of the appeal as well as for stay ofthe outstanding demand and if such prayer is made, thesame shall be considered in accordance with law byrespondent No. 4. 13. However, if any decision is taken adverse to thepetitioner by respondent No.1, the same shall not be giveneffect to for a period of two weeks thereafter. 14.Before parting with the record, it is made clear that wehave not expressed any opinion on merit. 15.Writ petition is disposed of. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN, J.) ….