Gulam Mustafa Enterprises Private Limited V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 (2) and The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(2) and The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and The Branch Manager Bank of Baroda, BMT Layout Branch

WP/25370/2022

AI Insights

Gulam Mustafa Enterprises Private Limited filed a writ petition against the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others, challenging the requirement to deposit 20% of the demanded tax amount as a pre-condition for appealing against the tax assessment order. The petitioner argued that this requirement was incorrectly imposed, leading to the freezing of their bank accounts. The respondents conceded that the pre-deposit was not required, leading to the quashing of both the initial demand letter and the subsequent communication to the bank.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 687996 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, CBDT Circular No. 1914 dated 31.07.2017, Section 240A of the I.T. Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND; M DILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: M N SHESHADRI; CHANDPASHA
• Keywords: Bank account freeze; Income Tax; Pre-deposit; Quash; Writ petition
• Section: 226; 227; 240A

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.25370 OF 2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN: GULAM MUSTAFA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.6 GM PEARL 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 068. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR/ AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI. GULAM MUKTHIYAR S/O LATE. GULAM RASOOL AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS DOING BUSINESS AT NO. 6, GM PEARL 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 068. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.N. SHESHADRI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. CHANDPASHA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (2), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. 3 . THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 2 KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 095. 4 . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 095. 5 . THE BRANCH MANAGER BANK OF BARODA, BMT LAYOUT BRANCH, BANGALORE-560 068. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND AND SRI. M. DILIP., ADVOCATES FOR R-1 TO R-4 NOTICE TO R5 IS D/W VIDE C/O DT.16.12.2022) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED LETTER DTD 07.10.2022 BEARING NO.ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1046208633 (1) ISSUED BY THE R1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, PRODUCED ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- “ a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order to quash the impugned letter dated: 07.10.2022 bearing No. No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1046208633(1) issued by the Respondent No.1 the Assistant Commissioner, produced Annexure-A. b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction to quash the 3 impugned letter dated: 09.12.2022 bearing No. F.NO. 226(3) / AAACT6320P/2022-23 issued by the Respondent No.2 to Bank of Baroda, BTM Layout Branch, Bengaluru i.e., petitioner’s Bank Vide Annexure-B. c) Issued a Writ in the nature Mandamus or any other Writ or Direction, directing the respondent-v to not to freeze the Bank account of the petitioner maintained at Respondent No.5 Bank and consequently permit its operations vide Annexure-B. d) To grant such other further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case on hand in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. The material on record discloses that aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer, the petitioner has preferred the appeal which is pending before the 4th respondent – Appellate authority. During the pendency of the appeals, the 1st respondent – Assessing Officer has issued the impugned notice calling upon the petitioner to pay 20% of the total amount demanded in the order, which 4 was under challenge before the appellate authority on the ground that the same is required to be deposited / paid by the petitioner before filing the appeal in terms of the CBDT Circular No. 1914 dated 31.07.2017. Since the petitioner did not comply with the demand made in the said notice, the 2nd respondent has issued impugned communication at Annexure-B dated 09.12.2022 to the 5th respondent – Bank calling upon the Bank to pay the amounts due from the petitioner. Aggrieved by the impugned letter at Annexure-A dated 07.10.2022 and the impugned communication at Annexure-B dated 09.12.2022, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents – revenue fairly submits that there is no requirement of the pre-deposit prior to preferring the appeal by the petitioner – assessee against the order passed by the Assessing Officer as wrongly stated in the notice at Annexure-A. His submission is placed on record. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 5 respondents – revenue that there is no requirement of making pre-deposit of 20% or otherwise by the petitioner – assessee, who has preferred the appeal pending before the 4th respondent – Assessing Authority, coupled with the language employed under Section 240A of the I.T.Act, which does not mandate pre-deposit of 20% nor the Circular dated 31.07.2017 relied upon in Annexure-A, which also does not contemplate requirement of pre- deposit for the purpose of filing / maintaining the appeal, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned letter at Annexure-A dated 07.10.2022 deserves to be quashed and consequently, the impugned communication at Annexure-B dated 09.12.2022 also deserves to be quashed and appropriate directions are to be issued to the respondents. 6. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned letter at Annexure-A dated 07.10.2022 passed by the 1st respondent – Assessing Officer and the impugned communication at Annexure-B 6 dated 09.12.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent are hereby quashed. (iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of respondents 1 to 4 to take recourse to such remedies as available in law. (iv) Petitioner is at liberty to produce the copy of this order before the 5th respondent – Bank to enable the Bank to defreeze all the accounts of the petitioner which was frozen pursuant to Annexure-B which stands quashed under this order. Sd/- JUDGE Srl. "