CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD., Ranchi V. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Patna and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi and Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS (Circle), Ranchi

WPC/1173/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Central Coalfields Ltd., the petitioner, challenging various orders related to income tax demands and attachments. The petitioner sought to amend the writ petition to include a challenge to the rejection of a stay petition (Annexure-18) concerning a disputed tax demand. The Income Tax Department had already realized the rectified demand through bank attachment before the writ application was filed. Both parties agreed to an expeditious disposal of the pending appeal, with the department requesting three months to conclude the appeal process. The court found that the amendment would not change the nature of the writ petition and allowed it, directing the appellate authority to expedite the appeal process.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 796815 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: RAHUL LAMBA
• Assessee Lawyers: BIREN PODDAR; PIYUSH PODDAR
• Keywords: Bank attachment; Expeditious Disposal; Income Tax; Stay Petition; Rectified Demand
• Section: 226(3); 206C

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI I.A. No. 3550 of 2020 In W. P. (T) No. 1173 of 2018 ---- CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD., Ranchi …. Petitioner Versus 1. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Patna 2. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi 3. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS (Circle), Ranchi. …….. Respondents CORAM : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary For the Petitioner : Mr. Biren Poddar, Senior Advocate Mr. Piyush Poddar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate --- 08/20.07.2020 1. Heard Mr. Biren Poddar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Piyush Poddar, Advocate and Mr. Rahul Lamba, learned counsel for appearing for the respondents - Income Tax Department through Video Conferencing both on I.A. No. 3550 of 2020 as well as the main petition . 2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that I.A. No. 3550 of 2020 has been filed for amendment in the main writ petition on account of the fact that due to inadvertence Annexure-18 of the main writ petition was not challenge in the prayer portion , although the same formed part of the main writ application. Learned counsel submits that Annexure-18 relates to the rejection of the stay petition filed by the petitioner before the Assessing Officer of the Income Tax Department during pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority. Learned senior counsel has also submitted that the amendment petition will not change the nature of the writ petition in any manner. However, at the same time, he submits that the entire rectified demand (Annexure-21) involved in the present case has already been realized by the Income Tax Department and as of now the petitioner is more interested in expeditious disposal of the pending appeal. Learned counsel further submits that the interlocutory application may be allowed. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the entire rectified demand arising out of Annexure-21 has already been 2 realized prior to filing of the writ application by way of bank attachment and he has no serious objection if any direction is passed by this Court for expeditious disposal of the appeal itself. He further submits that he has no serious objection so far as the amendment petition is concerned. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions from the respondent Income Tax Department, submits that the department needs 3 months’ time from today to dispose of the appeal if the petitioner cooperates in the proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to the time limit proposed by the respondents for disposal of the appeal. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that originally the writ petition was filed for quashing the order dated 23/27.11.2017 (Annexure-12) passed by the assessing officer, Respondent No.3, who had rejected the Stay petition dated 20.11.2017 (Annexure-11) filed by the Petitioner for Staying the balance disputed demand after adjusting 20% of the disputed demand out of the substantial refund claimed as due to the Petitioner. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 04.01.2018 (Annexure-15) passed by the Respondent No. 1 who has rejected the petition dated 07.12.2017 (Annexure-14) filed by the Petitioner praying to review the aforesaid order dated 23/27.11.2017 (Annexure-12). The petitioner has further challenged the attachment order dated 07.02.2018 (Annexure-19 and 19/1) issued u/s 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, by the assessing officer i.e. the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle, Ranchi for recovery of a sum of Rs. 71,79,29,158/- arising out of order passed by him u/s 206C of the Act dated 10.11.2017 (Annexure-6) and seeking a direction to refund the said amount. 6. This court further finds that an order of rectification was passed on 06.02.2018 (Annexure-21) and the petition for stay of demand arising out of aforesaid order dated 06.02.2018 (Annexure-21) was rejected vide order dated 06.02.2018 (Annexure- 18 and a part of the main writ petition ) passed by the Respondent no. 3 which the petitioner seeks to challenge by the interlocutory application for amendment. Admittedly the appeal arising out of demand is pending before the appellate authority and the petitioner has made another prayer in the interlocutory application seeking direction upon the appellate authority namely 3 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Ranchi to hear and decide the appeal filed on 18.11.2017 (annexure-8). 7. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties this Court is of the considered view that the amendment sought for vide Interlocutory Application (I.A. No. 3550 of 2020) will not change the nature of the writ petition in any manner and is fit to be allowed. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application (I.A. No. 3550 of 2020) is hereby allowed and Interlocutory Application is directed to be treated as a part of the main writ application. 8. So far as the main writ petition is concerned, it appears that the entire rectified demand has already been realized by the Income Tax Department and the parties are interested for expeditious disposal of the appeal and the learned counsel for the respondents has already submitted that the department needs 3 months’ time from today to dispose of the appeal if the petitioner cooperates in the proceeding. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Ranchi to conclude the hearing of the appeal and pass final order as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 4 months. It is also observed that the parties may conduct hearing through Video Conferencing if the system for such hearing is available. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) jk/ "