Ankit Gumber V. Union of India and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) III and Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) -I

WPT/65/2015

AI Insights

The case involves Ankit Gumber, the petitioner, who challenged the high-pitched income tax assessments made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, Bhopal, for the assessment years 2011-2012 to 2013-2014. The assessments demanded substantial sums totaling over INR 5 crore. The petitioner argued that the assessments were unreasonable and sought a stay on the demand notice to prevent coercive recovery actions, such as the attachment of property and bank accounts, until the appeal was decided. The respondents did not oppose the stay during the pendency of the appeal. The court referenced several precedents and circulars that supported the stay of such demands pending appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 811820 (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 Mewar 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: NAUSINA
• Assessee Lawyers: ANAND DADARIA
• Keywords: Coercive Steps; High-pitched assessment; Income tax appeal; Stay of Demand Notice
• Section: 226; 227

Judgement Text

"-<• IN THB HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^ r. •ETITIONER : <^rAit ' ,.... singh ^.--^\"iSdlt. Years> ^•^\"^^f- Nursin ,^^3^---- Bilaspur (C-G- ri * * Sikit Guraber, S/o Shri Manjeet Singh Gumber, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Behind Dr. Dhir Dayalband, 2) Union of Secretaiy, \" ndia, Through Of Finance, Governmenf of India, New-Delhi Commissioner of Income Tax (Appealsj III- Revenue Building, Hosangabad Road, Bhopal(M.P.) 'i^/AA 'i^J-l^ Coinmissioner of Incorae Tax (Centralj-I, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines fC. THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (T) No. 65 of 2015 PETITIONER Ankit Gumber ^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS Union of India and others Sftri Anand Dadaria counsel for the petitioner Smt. Nausina counsel 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 deposita sumof Rs. 1,13,71,390 (One Crore Thirteen Lakh Seventy Thousand Three Hundred & Ninety Only) for the assessment year 2011-2012, Rs. 1,14,86,060 (One Crore Fourteen Lakh Eighty Six Thousand & Sixty Only) for the assessment year 2012-2013 and Rs. 2,82,90,230 (Two Crore Eighty Two Lakhs Ninety thousand Two Hundred & Thirty Only) fpr the assessmentyear 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. fes^; —-2— 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that against the assessment order the petitioner has preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 vide 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 r'espbndehts 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 Mewar vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & others reported in (1997) 223 ITR 192 (Raj), decision of Madhya Pradesh High 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 (Wlunicipal Corporation, Satna vs.Union of India ahd others). -3- 3. Counsel for the respondents on instructions submits that instead of keeping this petition pending it may be disposed of as the petitioner has 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 ofwith 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 reeovery of disputed demand keeping the demand notice in abeyance. 5. In view of above, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- , Pritinker Diwakar Judge w "