Kaihaiyalal Gangwani V. Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr.

WPT/72/2015

AI Insights

The case involves Kanhaiyalal Gangwani, the petitioner, who challenged a high-pitched income tax assessment for the assessment year 2007-2008, amounting to Rs. 2,30,89,170. The assessment was made by the Income Tax Officer-I (3), Raipur, the second respondent. The petitioner appealed against this assessment to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the first respondent, but sought interim relief from the High Court to stay the demand notice to prevent coercive recovery actions, such as the attachment of property and bank accounts. The court considered the precedents and the submissions from both parties and decided to stay the coercive actions until the appeal is decided.

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 759900 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-05-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: BftiW Infrastructure Ltd. vs. ffl^^phas, His Late Hi@t)lnGJsg (ahsrana Shri Bhagwat Singhji Of Mewar vs. Income Tag^gpSlgte 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
• Keywords: Coercive Steps; Demand notice; High-pitched assessment; Stay of demand
• Section: 226; 227

Judgement Text

"• y' ^\" .^ RESPONDENTS: IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (T» No. r7'2—/2015 PETITIONER: : ^ Kanhaiyalal Gangwani S/o. Late Shri Ramchand Gangwani, aged about 56 years, Shop No. 14, Dhillon Complex, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. ' Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur / (C.G.) 2. Income Tax Officer-I (3) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT/WRITS DIRECTIONS. DIRECTION ETC. IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. CERTIORARI AND/OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OF LIKE NATURE. ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (T) No. 72 of 2015 PET1TIONER Kanhaiyalal Gangwani ^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS ommissioner of Income Tax and .Sftri Harsh Wardhan counsel for Boner. Smt. Nausina cgyQsel for the respona'&fl®1^ /•~Sfl/ WRIT P^BSyWWEhARTICLE 226/22f0F THE ^.ISIWBtUTIONOF INDIA ^ti^3i^d 31.3.2015 passed by respondent No.2 for tR@SSgsii^gffient years 2007-2008 demand notice has been issued asking the petitioner to deposit^ sum of Rs. 2,30,89,170 (Two Crore Thirty Lakh Eighty Nine Thousand and One hlundred Seventy Only). According to the petitioner, an un-reasoanble high pitched assessment has been made by the assessing officer i.e. respondent No.2 herein. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that against the assessment order the petitioner has preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 vide Annexure P-3 and if the effect and operation of the demand notice is not stayed, respondent No.2 will take coercive steps against him for recovery of disputed <>v 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 respondents 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 thig»s| ItuBlyiiipys High Courts have ^^^^ ^:^1^^ ^^ ^s ''^?\". ^.- granted ^iy|,rB*favbur of the assess§^.^jGptinsel for the <^.' '\"-^\" ~ ~\"~ -.. - - . _ _ _ - ^^ ^^ ^^.^. ^^- ^ !f3^i',?i6Vvft/\" '•V'^ BftiW Infrastructure Ltd. vs. ffl^^phas referred to tb®~< 4. Considering the submissions made by the parties, present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 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 recovery of disputed demand keeping the demand notice in abeyance. 5. In vie is'SI. Sy\"\"^ AMoffi; .f.sx-^M.^'\"'.. ^K^S 1 {• \"\"11,'%\":^'? l_.^ l^'\"\" -y'ys^./ RFv^t i- ^L^^-^^^^^^ y^~^^' ^iJT^^;;^.^^'w^--\"^^A?'^ ^^.^ Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge "