Amrit Kaur V. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, New-Delhi and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) III- Revenue Building, Hosangabad Road, Bhopal(M.P.) and Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Revenue Building, Hosangabad Road and Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines Raipur(C.G-)

WPT/66/2015

AI Insights

The case involves Amrit Kaur, the petitioner, who challenged the high-pitched income tax assessments made by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, Raipur, for several assessment years from 2007-2008 to 2013-2014. The petitioner argued that the assessments were unreasonably high and sought a stay on the demand notices issued for the recovery of the assessed amounts, fearing coercive actions like attachment of property and bank accounts. The petitioner had already filed an appeal against the assessment order. The court considered the precedents and submissions from both parties and decided to stay the coercive recovery actions until the appeal was resolved.

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 802441 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & others, His Late Highness Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji Of Udaipur vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & others, Northern Coalfields Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax and others, Municipal Corporation, Satna vs. Union of India and others
• Laws Referred To: Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: NAUSIN
• Assessee Lawyers: ANAND BADARIA
• Keywords: Coercive Steps; High-pitched assessment; Income tax assessment; Stay on demand notice
• Section: 226; 227

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (T) No. /2015 PETITIONER//r u^^ ,.^i W! SW ^$C yf ''\"'\"\" .4-1 ^- RESPONDENTS u' 1) 2) ^Amrit Kaur W/0 Late Shri Govind Singh Gumber, Aged About 66 Years, R/0 Behind Dr. Dhir Nursing Home, Dayalband, Bilaspur (C.G.) VBRSUS Union of India, Through Secretaiy, Ministry Of Finance, Department of Revenue, Govemment of India, New-Delhi Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) III- Revenue Building, Hosangabad Road, Bhopal(M.P.) Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Revenue Building, Hosangabad Road, 4) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines Raipur(C.G-) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT/WRITS, DIRECTION/ DIRECTION ETC. IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI AND/OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ^'•^-^ ^. .^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (T) No. 66 of 2015 PETITIONER Amrit Kaur VERSUS RESPONDENTS Union of tndia and others ^ Sbri Anand Badaria counsel for the petitioner. SrEit. Nausinacounsel for respondents 2 to 4. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (27.4.2015) By assessment order dated 26.3.2015 passed by respondent No,4 for the assessment years 2011-2012 to 2013- 2014 demand notice has been issued asking the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 41,88,670 (Fourty One Lakh Eighty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Onty) for the assessment year 2007-2008, Rs. 10,48,540 (Ten Lakh Fourty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Fourty Only) for the assessment year 2008-2009, Rs.7,78,030 (Se^en Lakh Seventy Eight Thousand and Thirty Only) for the assessment year 2009-201,0, Rs. 8,96,210 (Eight Lakh Ninety Six Thousand Two Hundred Ten Only) for the assessment year 2010-2011, Rs. 15,41,510 (Fifteen Lakh Fourty One Thousand Five Hundred Ten Only) for the assessment year 2011-2012, Rs. 32,26,740 (Thirty Two Lakh Twenty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Fourty Onty) for the assessmentyear 2012-2013 /f ••%gs i ^ and Rs. 1,48,900 (One Lakh Fourty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Only) for the assessment year 2013-2014. According to the petitioner, an un-reasoanble high pitched assessment has been made by the assessing officer i.e. respondent No.4 herein. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that against the assessment order the petitioner has preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 yide Annexure P-3 and if the effect and operation of^the demand notice is not stayed, respondent No.4 will take coercive steps against him for recovery of disputed demand and his property and the bank accounts are likely to be attached. He submits that till the decision of the appeal of the petitioner, the respondents may be directed not to take any coercive steps against him for recovery of disputed demand. According to the counsel for the petitioner, instruction No. 96 still covers the cases in which high pitched assessments are made and relying on the same circular various High Courts have granted stay in favour of the assessees. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of Delhi High Court in the matter of Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & others reported in (2010) 324 ITR 247, decision of Rajsthan High Court in the matter of His Late Highness Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji Of nflewar vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & others reported in (1997) 223 ITR 192 (Raj), decision of Madhya Pradesh High s Court in the matter of Northern Coalfields Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax and others reported in (2015)25 ITJ 492 (MP) and the order dated 30.9.2014 passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 14939/2014 (Municipal Corporation, Satna vs. Union of India and others). 3. Counsel for the respondents on instructions submits that instead of keeping this petition pending it may be disposed of as the petitioner tias already preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 and that during the pendency of the appeal no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 4. Considering the submissions made by the parties, present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the pending appeal of the petitioner expeditiously and till the decision on the said appeal the respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner for recoveryof disputed demand keeping the demand notice in abeyance. 5. In view of above, the petition is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- pritinkerDiwaker Judge "