LocalCube Commerce Private Limited V. The Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 4(1)(1), Bengaluru and The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Center and The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 Bengaluru

WP/18023/2024

AI Insights

The case involves LocalCube Commerce Private Limited, which filed a writ petition against various officials of the Income Tax Department, challenging an assessment order for the year 2018-19. The petitioner argued that the assessment order's demands were substantial and could affect the company's solvency. The petitioner had already filed an appeal against the assessment order, which was pending, and requested an expedited hearing. Additionally, the petitioner contested the rejection of their stay request, claiming the decision was not reasoned and contrary to applicable guidelines. The court's decision focused on ensuring a timely review of the appeal and reconsideration of the stay request.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 796467 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: E I SANMATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: BHARADWAJ SHESHADRI; SANDEEP HUILGOL
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Financial Implications; Income Tax; Writ petition; Stay Request
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:28560 WP No. 18023 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 18023 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. LOCALCUBE COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY GOVERNED BY THE COMPANIES ACT 2013 HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE AT: 14-F-1, KUMBALAGODU INDUSTRIAL AREA 2ND PHASE, KUMBALAGODU BENGALURU - 560 074 REPRSENTED HEREIN BY ITS DIRECTOR SHRI SRIDHAR GUNDAIAH … PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHARADWAJ SHESHADRI, ADVOCATE A/W SRI SANDEEP HUILGOL., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTER 2ND FLOOR, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM NEW DELHI - 110 003 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 4(1)(1), BENGALURU BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:28560 WP No. 18023 of 2024 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095 3. THE COMMISSONER OF INCOMET-TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELSSS APPEAL CENTER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT 2ND FLOOR, JAWARHALL NEHRU STADIUM NEW DELHI - 110 003 4. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 BENGALURU BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANAGALA BENGALURU - 560 095 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO i) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD. 20.04.2021 BEARING DIN ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2021-22/1032540848(1) PASSED BY THE R-1 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 (ANNEXURE A-1) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Petitioner has sought for setting aside of the assessment order at Annexure-A1 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:28560 WP No. 18023 of 2024 2. It is the case of the petitioner that insofar as the assessment year 2018-19 is concerned, petitioner has filed an appeal against the order passed by the 1st respondent which appeal is pending consideration before the 3rd respondent. It is further submitted that the petitioner has made representation for early disposal of the appeal at Annexure-R which is still pending consideration and no orders are passed regarding the same. 3. It is further submitted that the demands raised are huge and the financial implications of such demand would have the effect on the solvency of the petitioner. It is further submitted that as the petitioner has good case on merits, a direction may be passed to the Appellate Authority to dispose off the appeal expeditiously. It is also pointed out that insofar as the application seeking stay, request for stay has been rejected by order at Annexure-X which is not a speaking order and contrary to the guidelines applicable in the case of consideration of - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:28560 WP No. 18023 of 2024 request for stay as at Annexures-S and T. It is further submitted that in terms of the applicable circular, in the event the Authority finds it appropriate, reference may be made to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for reducing the amount to be deposited while considering the stay. 4. Sri. E. I. Sanmathi, learned counsel submits that the request of the petitioner for early hearing may be considered by the Authority appropriately. 5. It must be noticed that admittedly representation at Annexure-R has been made for early disposal of the matter and no order is passed. It would be appropriate to direct respondent No.3 to pass appropriate orders fixing the tentative date, subject to the pendency of cases before him and the peculiar facts of this case as made out in the petition. 6. In light of the observations made above, without prejudice to the direction made above, the order - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:28560 WP No. 18023 of 2024 at Annexure-X is set aside and the 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the request for stay appropriately and in the event, case is made out for reduction of deposit, to follow the procedure prescribed under Annexures-S and T. Petitioner is at liberty to file written submissions in support of his request for consideration of stay which may be considered appropriately. 7. Accordingly, petition is disposed off. Sd/- JUDGE VP "