Mohtisham Complexes Pvt. Ltd. V. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1 (1) and The Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax and The Commissioner of Income - Tax and The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) and Hotel Woodside

WP/6589/2015

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Mohtisham Complexes Pvt. Ltd., which filed writ petitions against the notices and demands issued by various income tax authorities for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2011-12. The petitioner had already paid 50% of the tax demand and was apprehensive that the Appellate Authority might not grant a stay on the recovery of the remaining amount. The court considered the petitioner's concerns but decided that the appropriate relief should be sought from the Appellate Authority, as per the recent departmental circular. The court also directed that the appeal be heard and disposed of expeditiously to avoid further controversy.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799217 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JEEVAN NEERALGI; A SHANKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: GURUNATHAN
• Keywords: Appellate Authority; Assessment years; Income Tax; Stay order; Writ petition
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 153A; 68

Judgement Text

" - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2016 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY WRIT PETITION NOS. 6589-6591 OF 2015 (T-IT) Between: M/s Mohtisham Complexes Pvt. Ltd., 6th & 7th Floor, Empire, M.G. Road, Mangalore - 575 003, Represented by its Managing Director, Sri. S.M.Arshad, Aged about 48 years, Son of Sri. Syed Mohammed Faqueeh. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Gurunathan, Advocate for Sri. S. Parthasarathi, Advocate) And 1. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1 (1), 1st Floor, Annexe, C.R. Building, Attavara, Mangalore – 575 001. 2. The Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, C.R. Building, Attavara, Mangalore – 575 001. - 2 - 3. The Commissioner of Income – Tax, 1st Floor, C.R Building, Nandigudda Road, Attavara, Mangalore – 575 001. 4. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), C.R. Building, Attavara, Mangalore – 575 001. 5. M/s. Hotel Woodside, C/o Mohtisham Complexes Pvt. Ltd, 6th & 7th Floor, Empire, M.G. Road, Mangalore – 575 001. Represented by its Managing Director Sri. Ushamani. K. Shetty, Son of Sri. Subbayya Naik, Aged 70 years. ... Respondents (By Sri. Jeevan. J. Neeralgi, Advocate for R1 to 4, Sri. A. Shankar, Advocate for R5) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to (a) quash the notice dated.19.5.2014 of the R-1 for the Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 vide Annexure - H; (b) quash the letter dated.13.1.2015 issued by the R-1 for the Assessment Years 2011-12 vide Annexure - K and etc. These writ petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following: - 3 - O R D E R The petitions coming on for preliminary hearing ‘B’ group is considered for final disposal. 2. The limited prayer in these petitions is that though the petitioner has paid 50% of the demand for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2011-12 and since an order of stay could be passed during the pendency of the appeal in view of a circular issued by the Income Tax department on 29/2/2016, though an application for stay is pending in view of the letter issued by the department calling upon the petitioner to pay taxes, it is the apprehension of the petitioner that stay order may not be granted by the Appellate Authority and therefore the petitioner is before this court. 3. If there is a circular as stated by the petitioner which would entitle him to an order of stay restraining recovery of the amount under demand, it would be for the Appellate Authority to consider the same and grant - 4 - him appropriate relief. Therefore there is no warrant for interference by this court. The petitions stand disposed of accordingly. 4. In the meanwhile respondents are restrained from taking any precipitative action pending orders on the application of the petitioner before the Appellate Authority. Further, in order to avoid any further controversy, it would be appropriate if the appeal itself is heard and disposed of in due course. Hence respondent No.4 is directed to expedite consideration of the appeal and in any event would hear and dispose of the appeal within a period of eight weeks from today, if not earlier. Sd/- JUDGE Rd/- "