Kashish Developers Ltd. through its Managing Director, Sri. Ajit Kr. Choudhary V. Union of India and Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Commissioner of Income Tax-TDS and Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) and Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Circle, Ranchi and Central Board of Direct Taxes and State Bank of India

WPC/919/2019

AI Insights

Kashish Developers Ltd., through its Managing Director, filed a writ petition against various respondents including the Union of India and several officials from the Income Tax Department, challenging the attachment of the company's bank accounts and the tax demands raised for several financial years. The petitioner sought to quash the order for attachment and demanded a stay on the tax demands until the appeals were decided by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The court noted that some of the appeals had already been decided and others were pending. Given these circumstances, the court directed the appellate authority to expedite the decision on the pending appeals and disposed of the writ petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 801442 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P A S PATI; R N SAHAY
• Assessee Lawyers: PIYUSH CHITRESH
• Keywords: Appeal Disposal; Bank Account Attachment; Certiorari; Certiorari; Mandamus; Tax demand
• Section: 226(3); 220(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 919 of 2019 Kashish Developers Ltd. through its Managing Director, Sri. Ajit Kr. Choudhary ..… Petitioner Versus 1.Union of India. 2.Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Beerchand Patel Marg, P.O.-Patna, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist-Patna. 3.Commissioner of Income Tax-TDS, Central Revenue Building Beerchand Patel Marg, P.O.-Patna, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Patna. 4.Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Central Revenue Building, Main Road, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Ranchi, District-Ranchi. 5.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Circle, Ranchi having its office at Central Revenue Building, Main Road, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Ranchi, District-Ranchi. 6.Central Board of Direct Taxes through its Chairman, having its office at, 9th Floor Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, P.O,P.S. and District- New Delhi. 7.State Bank of India through its Manager Administration, having its office at Kutchery Road, P.O.-G.P.O, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi. ..… Respondents --------- CORAM : HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, Adv. For the Resp.-Bank : Mr. P.A.S.Pati, Adv. For the Resp.-Department : Mr. R. N.Sahay, Sr. Standing Counsel --------- 12/31.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Writ petition was preferred with the following prayers; (a) To issue an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 08.2.2019 (Annexure-4) issued by Deputy Commissioner Income (TDS) Ranchi to the bankers of the petitioner company where and whereunder the respondents have attached the bank account of the petitioner company under section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 pertaining to A/c No. 106010200016542 H B Road Branch, Shambhu Complex, Ranchi and A/c No. 31221703354 at State Bank of India, P.B.Branch, Pee Pee Compound Ranch for a sum of Rs.47,09,36,450/- in violation of the section 220 (1) of the Act which provides for 30 days notice period for -2- payment to be made against the demand notice and also for the reason that the notice served u/s 226 (3) of the Act was never served in advance upon the petitioner company for the relevant financial year. AND/OR b. To issue a appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of mandamus directing the Commissioner Income Tax Appeal to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner company against the order of the respondents under section 226(3) of the Act. AND/OR c. For your lordships pleased to grant the stay of order the dated 08.02.2019 (Annexure-4) passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Department, Circle Office, Ranchi till the disposal of the appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). AND/OR d. For your lordships may be pleased to grant the stay of the tax demand raised vide orders dated 07.01.2019 (Annexure-3) for the Financial Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Department (TDS) Ranchi till the disposal of the appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). AND/OR e. To issue a appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to refund the amount recovered/deducted u/s 226 (3) of the I.T.Act, amounting to Rs.70,42,995/-. 3. However, learned counsel for the parties informed that the three of the appeals preferred by the petitioner out of six before learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the order passed by Assessing Officer creating tax demand for the financial year 2013-14, 2016-17 and 2017-18 have been decided by the appellate authority. Rest appeals pertaining to the year 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2015-16 are pending. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate authority may be directed to dispose of the pending appeals relating to these three financial years. Learned counsel for the respondent Income Tax Department submits that the pending appeals be also directed to be decided expeditiously. -3- 5. Having regard to the developments made during pendency of the writ application and that the appeals concerning the relevant financial years have either been decided or are in the process of being decided by the appellate authority, there is no purpose in adjudicating on the prayer made by the writ petition. 6. Writ petition is being disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the appeals pertaining to the years 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2015- in accordance with law, if not decided, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. I.A. is closed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, A.C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/pramanik "