MALLANAGOUDA S. SANKAGOUDASHANI V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

WP/78642/2013

AI Insights

The case involves Mallanagouda S. Sankagoudashani, the petitioner, who challenged an order from the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli, regarding the payment of tax in installments following assessment orders. The petitioner had filed appeals against these assessments and sought an interim stay on the tax collection, citing instructions from the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The Deputy Commissioner ordered the tax to be paid in installments without adequately addressing the petitioner's request for a stay. The High Court found this response insufficient and directed a re-evaluation of the petitioner's applications.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 735921 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: Y V RAVIRAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHOK KULKARNI; H R KAMBIYAR
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals); Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax; Income Tax; Interim Stay
• Section: 220(6)

Judgement Text

"WPs.78642-645/2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.Nos.78642-78645/2013 (T-IT) BETWEEN: Mallanagouda S.Sankagoudashani, Aged about 50 years, No.222, II Floor, Bhavani Arcade, Near Basvanavana, N.C.M., Hubli – 580 029. ..PETITIONER (By Sri Ashok A.Kulkarni & Sri H.R.Kambiyar, Advs.) AND: 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Central Revenue Buildings, Income Tax Office, Navanagar, Hubli. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 (1), 1st Floor, C.R.Building, Navanagar, Hubli – 580 025. ..RESPONDENTS (By Sri Y.V.Raviraj, Adv.) These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order of the 2nd respondent dated 19.04.2013 issued vide Annexure-E and etc. These writ petitions are coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day the Court made the following:- WPs.78642-645/2013 2 ORDER 1. In these writ petitions, petitioner is challenging the order dated 19.04.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Hubli, produced at Annexure-E. 2. Petitioner has suffered assessment orders produced at Annexures-B1 to B4 dated 19.03.2013. Against the said orders of assessment, petitioner has filed appeals before the 1st respondent – Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). At the same time, invoking the provisions under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’), petitioner has sought for stay of collection of tax by moving an application before the 2nd respondent until the disposal of the appeal placing reliance on the instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Instruction No.96 dated 21.08.1969. Petitioner has produced the copies of the applications filed before the 2nd respondent at Annexures-D1 to D4. On the applications, the 2nd respondent has passed the following order: “Considering the facts of the case and your submission, you are requested to pay the demand in 10 equal monthly installments. The first WPs.78642-645/2013 3 installment shall be paid on or before 29.04.2013 and copies of challans for subsequent months shall be furnished by 25th of every month.” 3. It is this order that is challenged in this writ petition. Petitioner is also seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of the applications filed vide Anenxures-F1 to F4 on 26.04.2013 praying for interim stay of the orders of assessment and further action pursuant thereof. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the Income Tax Department. Apparently, the communication at Annexure-E is not of the result of application of mind to the averments made by the petitioner in the application and the affidavit as also to the contentions raised by him. The said communication cannot be characterised as a speaking order made on the prayer for interim stay, as the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax has not considered the matter referring to the merits of the contentions raised in the application. The impugned communication therefore, deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The Deputy Commissioner is directed to consider the applications afresh in accordance WPs.78642-645/2013 4 with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. It will be open to the petitioner to pursue the matter before the 1st respondent in accordance with law. Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed. SD/- JUDGE PKS "