M/s Gold Bricks Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. V. Commissioner Of Income Tax appeals

WPT/67/2016

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Goldbricks Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner, who challenged a high-pitched assessment demand of Rs.30,55,130 for the assessment year 2013-14, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Officer-I (1), Raipur. The petitioner argued that the assessment was unreasonably high and sought a stay on the demand notice to prevent coercive recovery actions, citing similar precedents and internal instructions that recommend staying recovery during the appeal process for harsh assessments. The respondents, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, did not oppose the stay but suggested the petition be disposed of as the appeal was already filed and would be decided promptly.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 749726 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2016
• 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: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: NAUSINA ALI
• Assessee Lawyers: ROMIR GOYAL
• Keywords: Coercive Steps; Harsh assessment; Pending appeal; Stay of demand
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"Page 1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(T). No. 67 of 2016 1. M/s. Goldbricks Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Kachna, Main Road, Khamrdih, Near G.A.D. Colony, Raipur, Through : Rakesh Saraogi (Director), S/o. Shri Satya Narayan Saraogi, aged about 52 years, Subhash Road, Ganjpara, Raipur, R/o. Anandam World City, Kachna Main Road, Near G.A.D. Colony, Raipur (C.G.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Officer-I (1) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Romir Sumit Goyal, Advocate For Respondents : Mrs. Nausina Afrin Ali, Advocate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 10/05/2016 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the demand made of Rs.30,55,130/- (Annexure P/1) in the assessment order dated 31.03.2016, for assessment year 2013-14. According to the petitioner, an un- reasonable high pitched assessment has been made by the assessing officer i.e. the respondent No.3 herein. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that against the assessment order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the respondent No.1 vide Annexure P-3 and if the effect and operation of the demand Page 2 notice is not stayed, the respondent No.3 shall take coercive steps against the petitioner for recovery of disputed demand by attachment of the property and the bank accounts. It is contended that since the appeal has been preferred against such assessment order, the respondents may be directed to follow their own instructions No.96, which directs that in case of harsh assessment, if appeal is preferred, then in such case, the recovery should be normally stayed. The counsel submits that in the instant case, assessment has been made to the extent of Rs.30,55,130/-, which will certainly fall within the ambit of harsh assessment. 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 Rajasthan 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 30.09.2014 passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.14939/2014 (Municipal Corporation, Satna vs. Union of India and others) and would submit that in the similar circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench of this High Court in W.P.(T) 72 of 2015 has passed the similar like nature of the order, therefore, the recovery be stayed since the appeal is pending. 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 the respondent No.1 and that Page 3 during the pendency of the appeal, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner and the appeal would be decided within four weeks. 4. Considering the submission made by the parties, present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to decide the pending appeal of the petitioner within further period of four weeks. It is further observed that till the decision on the said appeal, respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner for recovery of disputed demand keeping the demand notice in abeyance. 5. In view of above, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) JUDGE Balram "