M/S KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/50368/2018

AI Insights

The case involves the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, represented by its CEO, Dr. N. Shivashankara, IAS, challenging the attachment of their bank account for the recovery of dues related to the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The petitioner also contested a directive from the Assessing Officer to pay 20% of the outstanding demand during the appeal's pendency before the CIT [A]. The High Court of Karnataka found that since the appeals were already filed with the ITAT and the CIT [A] had upheld the assessment orders, the writ petition became infructuous. The court dismissed the petition but allowed the petitioner to seek a stay of demand or coercive recovery at the ITAT.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 697370 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: SUSHMA RAVINDRA
• Keywords: Assessment years; Bank Account Attachment; Coercive Recovery; Income Tax; Stay of demand; Writ petition
• Section: 20

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE: THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.50368-50369/2018 (T – IT) BETWEEN: M/s. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD #49, 4TH & 5TH FLOORS, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001 [REP. BY ITS CEO & EM, Dr. N.SHIVASHANKARA, IAS, S/O SRI NINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS]. ... PETITIONER [BY SMT SUSHMA RAVINDRA, ADV. FOR SRI CHYTHANYA.K.K., ADV.] AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [EXEMPTIONS] CIRCLE-1, 6TH FLOOR UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU-560027. 2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [EXEMPTIONS] 6TH FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU-560027. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.] THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH AS FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED BY AN APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF - 2 - CERTIORARI OR OTHERWISE THE IMPUGNED LETTER DATED 24.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE LEARNED FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE BRANCH MANAGER OF CORPORATION BANK, BENGALURU FOR THE AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- O R D E R In these writ petitions, the assessee has challenged the order of the attachment of bank account dated 24.10.2018 for the recovery of dues relating to the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 and also the letter issued by the Assessing Officer dated 02.04.2018 directing the assessee to pay 20% of the outstanding demand during the pendency of the appeal before the CIT [A]. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed a memo submitting that during the pendency of the writ petitions, the appeal pending before the CIT [A] has been disposed of by substantially upholding the order of the assessmet for both the assessment years referred to above. The stay application before the - 3 - Additional Commissioner of Income Tax [Exemptions] is also been disposed of as not maintainable by order dated 14.09.2018. In view of the order of the CIT [A], the order passed by the Assessing Officer directing the assessee to pay 20% of the outstanding demand during the pendency of the appeal has merged with the order of the CIT [A]. It is submitted that against the order of the CIT [A], the assessee/petitioner has an alternative and efficacious statutory appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ['ITAT' for short]. Hence, the petitions are rendered infructuous. 3. Copies of the order of the Additional CIT [E] dated 14.09.2018 and CIT [A] dated 31.12.2018 are produced along with the memo. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the appeals have been already filed by the petitioner before the ITAT challenging the order of the CIT [A] dated 31.12.2018 and steps are also taken to - 4 - move for the stay of demand. However, she submits that the challenge to the order of the attachment of bank account for the recovery of dues for the assessment years in question survives for consideration. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is not in dispute that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the assessment years in question has been disposed of and the appeals are preferred by the assessee before the ITAT. In such circumstances, the challenge made to the order of the Assessing Officer in as much as the stay application is concerned, does not survive for consideration. 6. However, in view of the appeals already said to have been filed by the petitioner/assessee, the assessee is at liberty to move before the ITAT for stay of demand/coercive recovery in terms of the demand. - 5 - Hence, the writ petition is rendered infructuous and accordingly stands dismissed, keeping open all the rights and contentions of the parties to urge before the jurisdictional ITAT. Sd/- JUDGE NC. "