Pratima Infrastructure Ltd V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

WP/23970/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Pratima Infrastructure Ltd, which filed a writ petition against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, challenging the demand for tax based on assessment orders for the years 2014-15 to 2020-21. The petitioner argued that the tax demand was arbitrary and sought a stay on the collection of the tax until the appeals pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) were resolved. The court had previously granted a partial stay on the condition of paying 20% of the demand, which the petitioner complied with. The court, considering the compliance and the pending appeals, decided to stay further collection of the tax demand until the appeals were decided, emphasizing the need for expeditious handling by the CIT(A).

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 764454 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KULKARNI
• Assessee Lawyers: Y RATNAKAR
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income Tax; Mandamus; Stay of collection; Tax demand
• Section: 143(3); 153C

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY Between: Pratima lnfrastructure Lld,292-111, Road No,78, Jibilee Hills, Hyderabad 500 033, Represented by its Managing Director Smt.B.Usha Rani, ...PETITIONER AND 1. Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Central Circle) Circle-2(4), 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 2. Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Circle, 7th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 o't the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any. other writ, order or direction, declaring that the pptitioner should not be treated as being in default for non-payment of the tax of Rs.97,43,'l 1,2841- determined vide Assessment Order dated 31.03.2022 for lhe Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2020-21 and to declare that the petitioner is entitled to stay of collection of the said demand during the pendency of the Income Tax Appeal before the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals). lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay collection of tax demand of Rs.97,43,11 ,2841- for Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2020-21 demanded, vide Assessment Orders dated 31.03.2022 passed by Respondent No.1 dated 31 .03.2022 under PANo.AABCP2o9BP, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. Y. RATNAKAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI AJAY KUMAR KULKARNI FOR SRI B. NARASIMHA SARMA, SENIOR S.C. FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following: ORDER I I I I WRIT PETITION NO: 23970 OF 2022 I THE } ON,BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAT- BII.JYITN AND THE ION'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR IIEDDY Writ Petition No.2397O of '.2O'22 9RDEB: I't. t ttorL'bte t|rc ChpJ.,ustl.:e iJuat tthuqa,tl Hcarc Mr. Y. Ratnakar, lcarncd crnlrsel for the petitioner, nd Mr. Aj ay Kumar Kulkarni, lea'rrcd counsel lor thc resp rrrdents rcprcseriting Mr. B. Naras rrha Sarma, leerrned Se rior Standing Counscl lor thc lrrcomc Tax I)e partm cn 2. (]rievi ncc of thc pclitioncr is that rvhilc t hc appeals filed by it a i-c pending bclorc thc first appcl)atc arrthority, rcspondenL, zrrc insisting on paymcnt of clcma;rci as. per thc assessment orders undcr considcration. 3. Pctitic rcr is an asscssec undcr thc ln< r rr e 'lax Act, 196 I (bricfl ', 'thc Act'hcrcinaftcr). I)ctitioncrs; cnllaged in thc busincs s of cxccuting civil contracts for -iovernment. Iror thc ass :ssmcnt ycar 20 I 4 I5, pctitiollcr /i:rs a sscssed by the asst ssing ofliccr vidc thc asscssmcnt ordc r dated 31 .O3.2022 passed undcr Scction I a3(3) rcad rr Lth Section l53C ol thr Act whercbv ccrtain additions rvc.rc rnade to tire incomc rl' thc pctitioncr. Conscqucntly, tor rr income oI thc pctit.ion rr was asscsscd at Rs.56,18,000 I For thc I assessment year 20 l5-16, pctitioncr was assesscd under Section 143(3) read with Section I 53C of thc Act by the assessing officcr, vidc thc order datcd 31.O3.2022, whcreby total incomc of thc petitioner was assessed at Rs.35,92,252 l- e'ftt:-r making certain additions. For the assessment year 2016- 17, pctitioncr /as assessed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153C of thc Act by the assessing officcr, vide thc ordcr datcd 31.O3.2022, whereby total income ol thc pctitioncr was assessed at Rs.3 i,48,49,192/ aftcr making ccrtain additions. For the assessment year 2017 18, pctitioncr was assessed under Section 143(3) read u,ith Section 153C of the Act by the assessing officcr, vidc ordcr datcd 31.03 .2022, whereby total income of thc pet-itioner was assessed at Rs.82,96,17 ,246 I - after making ccrtain additions. For the assessment ycar 20 18 19, pctition<:r vas assessed undcr Section 143(3) rcad r,r,ith Section i 53C of thc Act by the assessing officcr, vide thc ordcr datcd 31.O3.2O22, whereby total income of the pctitioncr was assessed at Rs.87,79,82,558/ after making certain additions. For the assessment ycar 2O19.20, pctitioncr was assessed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153C of thc Act by the l assessing rfficer, vide thc ordcr datcd 3l .O3 :','-t22. whcreby total inc rme of thc pctitioncr t'as asse ssed at Rs.74,31 a l.758l- aftcr making ccrtain addrtions. Likewise for thc as ,cssment ycar 2O2O 21 , pctitioncr \"r as assessed under Sec ion 143(3) rcad with Scction 153( c,f the Act by thc assess ing officer, vidc thc ordcr dat.cd 11 .r)3 .2922. gt thc alore raid asscssmcnL ordcr, totirl in<:omr: ol the petitioner' ,r,as assessed at Rs.76,19,32,91O / altcr making ccrtain acl litions. 4. Aggr cvcd by thc aforcsaid sevcn assc ismcnt orders for sevcn asscssmcnt ycars, pctitioncr pr{)1or re(l appeals beforc thr first appellatc authority i.c , Corrr nis;sioner ol Incomc 1'r x (Appcals) 12, Ilydcrabad, (brrc'frr,, 'thc CIT(A)' hereinaJte'). Thc particulars of thc appcals a-(: as undcr:- Asst. ycar App.-=lNq I!yd-12.I103,16l l -1.- l4 ttyd-t'.).ll0l t2l I4 1.5 llyd-12.1 l03r)3/ 15,- 16 Ityd-1'.2lto.+tt I tt' L7 I lyd- 12.l I Oil 2!l / l7'- 18 llyd-12.llO.1 ill18 l9 llyd-l'.)./10;19 I ttt 20 4. I . Petil oner had lilcd stay pctitions bctcr.c rr'spondcnt 2014- t5 2015- 16 20r6-17 2017 - ta 20ta-t9 2019-20 2020..2 crr(A). crT(A), crr(A), crr(^), crT(A), crT(A), crr(A). No. I for ;tay oI dcmand till disposal of ,hc -cspcctivc I I I .t appeals before thc CIT(A). I lowcvcr, by thc order dated 12.05.2022, the pctitions wcrc partly aliowed by respondent No.i by directing thc petitioncr to pay 2Ooh of the demand and subjcct to such paymcnt, collcction of the balance demand was dirccted to bc staycd. 'lhcreafter, petitioner had approached rcspondent No.2. Howevcr, no relief was grantcd by respondcnt No.2. As a matter of fact, by order dated 17.05.2022, rcspondcnt No.2 had directed the petitioner to pa.y t hc cntire tax amount. lt was thereafter that thc u,rit pctition camc to bc filcd. 5. On 26.O5.2O22, this Court had passed thc following order:- \"Sri [].Narasimha Sarma, Iearned Scnior Counsel for Income Tax Departmcnt, takes noticc on bchalf of the respondents and seeks timc to filc countcr. The petitioner herein had filed thc present writ petition to declare that thc pctitioner should not bc trcated as a dcfaulter for non payment of tax of lts-97,43,I l,2t]4/ determined vide assessment order, datcd 31.O3.202-2 for the Assesslnent -years 2014-15 to 2O2O.2o21, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently, tr.r dcclare ttrat thc petitioncr is errtitled to stay of collection of demand during pcrrdcncl o[ thc lncomc 't'ax Appcal. 'lhe pctitioncr has sought the aforcsaid rclicf on various grounds, wtrich rcquire examirration after filing the counter by the respondents- A perusal of the record rvould also rcvcal that thc petitioner hercin had filed an appeal and it is pcnding. Along with the said appeal, the pctitioncr hcrein had also liled stay ) pctitiori, 'hich was dismisscd vide ordcr, dttted 17.(t5 2022. Thcre i:; ro challcnge to thc said order- I-- )wever, in vicw of the abovc said discussi,,-r miltter rcqrrircs xamination. Thcreforc, there shall be stay .]1 colle( tion of tax tk nand of Rs.97,43,11,284 I for thc Assessnr,rn[ Ycars ).Ol120 5 ro 2O2O 2O2l uide Assessmcnt Ordrr. dated 3l 03.20 2 passcd by rcspondcnt No. I on ,rondili)n of thc pctil ionc-r paying I 5% of thc amount dcmandc