Wpt v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR WPT No. 52 of 2020 1. M/s Ashok Vihar, A Partnership Firm Having Its Office At Shop No.182, Atlani Corporation, Jeevan Bima Marg, Pandri Raipur,Chhattisgarh, Through Its Partner Rajesh Atlani, S/o Late ShriGolaram Atlani, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Behind Shiv Mandir,Khamardih, Shankar Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 182, Atlani Corporation, Jeevan Bima Marg, Pandri Raipur,Chhattisgarh, Through Its Partner Rajesh Atlani, S/o Late ShriGolaram Atlani, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Behind Shiv Mandir,Khamardih, Shankar Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Aaykar Bhawan, CivilLines, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Lines, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Aaykar Bhawan, CivilLines, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Lines, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 3(4) Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines,District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Tax Recovery Officer - (Asstt) – 1, Aaykar Colony Type - 5, Civil LineDistrict : Raipur, Chhattisgarh District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Respondents For PetitionerFor Respondents : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Advocate: Mr. Amit Choudhari and Ms. Naushina A. Ali, Advocate : Mr. Amit Choudhari and Ms. Naushina A. Ali, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam KoshyOrder on Board 19.03.2020 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking for an appropriatedirection to the respondent no. 2 to decide the pending appeal of thepetitioner at the earliest. The further relief is that pending the appealbefore the respondent no. 2, the respondents may not initiate anycoercive steps for recovery of the amount as per the demand notice. direction to the respondent no. 2 to decide the pending appeal of thepetitioner at the earliest. The further relief is that pending the appealbefore the respondent no. 2, the respondents may not initiate anycoercive steps for recovery of the amount as per the demand notice. 2. The facts of the case is that, the issue involved in the present writpetition is in-respect of the Assessment Year 2013-14. According topetition is in-respect of the Assessment Year 2013-14. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had filed a return on31.03.2014 giving income tax as Rs. 1,56,520/-. Subsequently, thecase of the petitioner was subjected to the CASS selection andscrutiny and the respondent department under Section 143 (3) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 passed assessment order whereby theauthorities found that the petitioner has suppressed an income of Rs.7,43,77,220/-. The said order of the assessment was dated30.03.2016 against which the petitioner preferred an appeal beforethe respondent no. 2 on 20.04.2016. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the said appeal is stillpending consideration and meanwhile, the respondents have alsoissued a demand notice against him. Subsequently, now summonswere issued under Rule 83 of the Schedule-II of the Income Tax Act,1961 calling upon the petitioner to give attendance and/or produceeither personally or through an authorized representative the booksof accounts and/or other documents and not to depart until youreceive permission. pending consideration and meanwhile, the respondents have alsoissued a demand notice against him. Subsequently, now summonswere issued under Rule 83 of the Schedule-II of the Income Tax Act,1961 calling upon the petitioner to give attendance and/or produceeither personally or through an authorized representative the booksof accounts and/or other documents and not to depart until youreceive permission. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the circulardated 29.02.2016, which stands further modified subsequently videcircular dated 31.07.2017, the petitioner has moved an application forstay of the demand notice pending the appeal. The said applicationhas been moved before the assessing officer way-back in the year2016 i.e. on 28.04.2016 and the said application is still pending. Thecounsel for the petitioner submits that on one hand, the application ofthe petitioner for stay of the demand notice is pending considerationbefore the assessing officer and at the same time, the respondent no.4 have issued Annexure P-5 dated 05.11.2019 calling the petitionerdated 29.02.2016, which stands further modified subsequently videcircular dated 31.07.2017, the petitioner has moved an application forstay of the demand notice pending the appeal. The said applicationhas been moved before the assessing officer way-back in the year2016 i.e. on 28.04.2016 and the said application is still pending. Thecounsel for the petitioner submits that on one hand, the application ofthe petitioner for stay of the demand notice is pending considerationbefore the assessing officer and at the same time, the respondent no.4 have issued Annexure P-5 dated 05.11.2019 calling the petitioner to produce on record the details and the subsequent summons beingissued including reminders which have been issued to the petitionerin this regard. At this juncture, the limited prayer that the petitionerhas made is that, let appropriate direction be given to the concernedauthorities, firstly, directing the assessing officer to decide theapplication for stay of the demand notice pending the appeal andsecondly, directing the appellate authority also to take a decision onthe appeal at the earliest. 5. To the limited relief that the petitioner confines in the present writpetition, the counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department doesnot oppose. petition, the counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department doesnot oppose. 6. Given the facts that the application for stay of the petitioner ispending consideration before the assessing officer since 28.04.2016ends of justice would meet, if the respondent no. 3 is directed to takea decision on the application for stay in-accordance with law at theearliest. It is expected that while taking a decision, an opportunity begiven to the petitioner. Needless to mention that this Court whiledisposing-off the petition also expects that the respondent no. 2 i.e.,the appellate authority to decide the appeal also of the petitionerwhich again is pending since 2016, at the earliest in-accordance withlaw. pending consideration before the assessing officer since 28.04.2016ends of justice would meet, if the respondent no. 3 is directed to takea decision on the application for stay in-accordance with law at theearliest. It is expected that while taking a decision, an opportunity begiven to the petitioner. Needless to mention that this Court whiledisposing-off the petition also expects that the respondent no. 2 i.e.,the appellate authority to decide the appeal also of the petitionerwhich again is pending since 2016, at the earliest in-accordance withlaw. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed-off. Given the aforesaiddirection of this Court, it is expected that that respondents shall notinitiate any coercive steps till the application for stay is pendingconsideration before the assessing officer. direction of this Court, it is expected that that respondents shall notinitiate any coercive steps till the application for stay is pendingconsideration before the assessing officer. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge