BADAGABETTU CREDIT V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

WP/13678/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Badagabetttu Credit Co-operative Society Ltd, which filed a writ petition against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, challenging an assessment order and seeking interim relief regarding tax demands. The petitioner argued that despite filing an appeal and requesting a stay on the tax demand, the authorities did not respond, leading to the issuance of a notice demanding 20% of the assessed amount. The court did not delve into the merits of the case but focused on the procedural aspect, ensuring that the petitioner's request for a stay on the tax demand was considered promptly.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 753998 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-09-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: E I SANMATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: MAHESH UPPIN
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income Tax; Interim relief; Stay Application; Writ petition
• Section: 143(3); 220(6)

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 01st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.13678 OF 2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN: BADAGABETTU CREDIT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD H. O. CHETHANA BUILDING, MISSION COMPOUND UDUPI 576101, REP BY MR RAJESH, GENERAL MANAGER I/C. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.MAHESH R UPPIN., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, ROOM NO 356, C R BUILDING, I P ESTATE, NEW DELHI 110002. 2. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, ALBUQUERQUE HOUSE OPP FORUM MALL PANDESHWARA, MANGALURU 575001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.03.2022 BEARING PA NO.AAAAB3065F PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-A. THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- 2 ORDER In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: “[a] Quash the Assessment Order dt: 30.03.2022 bearing PAN No.AAAAB3065F passed by the 2nd respondent marked as ANNEXURE-A by issuing a writ in the nature of Certiorari; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE Direct the respondents not to demand any pre- deposit or tax from the petitioner till the disposal of ANNEXURE-C appeal Dt: 25.04.2022 bearing PAN No.AAAAB3065F by the 1st respondent. [b] issue a writ in the nature of mandamus by directing the 1st respondent to dispose off the appeal ANNEXURE-C filed by the petitioner within a period of two months; and [c] grant such other reliefs as may be deemed fit to grant under the circumstances of the case in the interest of equity and justice.\" 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the reassessment order dated 30.03.2022 passed by the respondent No.2-Assessing Authority under Section 143[3] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, 'the IT Act'], the petitioner has filed an appeal in Form No.35 along with the application for Stay on 25.04.2022. In addition thereto, the petitioner has also filed application before the respondent No.2-Assessing Authority under Section 220[6] of the IT Act requesting the respondent No.2 to keep the demand in abeyance pending disposal of the appeal. 4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the petitioner taking necessary steps by preferring an appeal as well as by invoking Section 220[6] of the IT Act and requesting the respondent No.2 to keep the demand in abeyance, neither the respondent No.1 or the respondent No.2 are considering the request made by the petitioner nor the request for interim prayer sought for by the petitioner 4 and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition, particularly, when the respondent No.2 has issued a Notice dated 23.05.2022 calling upon the petitioner to pay 20% of the demand amount. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims in the present petition, in the appeal before the respondent No.1- Appellate Authority and also in the application at Annexure- E filed by the petitioner before the respondent No.2 under Section 220[6] of the IT Act, without expressing any opinion on the merits/de-merits of the rival contentions keeping the same open, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing the respondent No.2 to consider and pass appropriate orders on the application/representation/request dated 25.04.2022 at Annexure-E submitted by the petitioner in accordance with 5 law and at any rate within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. It is further directed that till the respondent No.2 considers and passes appropriate orders on the aforesaid representation dated 25.04.2022 at Annexure-E submitted by the petitioner referred to supra, the respondents shall not take any precipitative/coercive steps against the petitioner pursuant to Annexures-A and F dated dated 30.03.2022 and 23.05.2022 respectively. Subject to the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed off. SD/- JUDGE AN/- "