Rajesh Singh Thakur V. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, New-Delhi and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) III- Revenue Building, Hosangabad Road, Bhopal and Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Revenue Building, Hosangabad Road, Bhopal and Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines Raipur

WPT/69/2015

AI Insights

The case involves Rajesh Singh Thakur, the petitioner, who challenged the high-pitched tax assessments made by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, Raipur, for the assessment years 2007-2008 to 2013-2014. The assessments demanded a total of Rs. 2,00,00,000 approximately, which the petitioner contested as unreasonable. The petitioner had already filed an appeal against these assessments. The primary legal issue was whether the demand notices should be stayed pending the decision of the appeal to prevent coercive recovery actions by the tax authorities. The court considered various precedents and the submissions of both parties before reaching its decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 802439 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & others, His Late Highness Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji Of Mewar vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & others, Northern Coalfields Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax and others, Municipal Corporation, Satna vs. Union of India and others
• Laws Referred To: Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: NAUSHINA
• Assessee Lawyers: ANAND DADARIA
• Keywords: Appeal; Coercive Steps; High-pitched assessment; Income tax assessment; Stay on demand notice
• Section: 226; 227

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTJSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (Tj No. O /2015 -I PETITIONER A.\"- /•;&'•••''' RESPONDENTS 1) 2) 3) 4) Rajesh Singh Thakur , S/o Shri Chottelal Thakurr, Aged About 49 Years, R/0 Near Surabhi Shishu Mandir , Sarju Bagicha, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, New-Delhi Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) III- Revenue Building, Hosangabad Road, BhopalfM.P.) Commissioner of Incorae Tax, Central Circle, Revenue Building, Hosangabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.) Deputy Commissioner of Incorae Tax (Central)-I, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines RaipurfC.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION QF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT/WRITS, DIRECTION/ DIRECTION ETC. IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI AND/OR ANY OTHER SUiTABLE WRIT QF LIKE NATURE fS'vS^^:^. ^s-^ 8' Kg&B^ ti l:^IIJ/^ ^.1 y s , '^/—ifKsf ~^y.£ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Nlr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (T) No. 69 of 2015 PETITIONER Rajesh Singh Thakur VERSUS RESPONDENTS Union of India and others ^ SHri Anand Dadaria counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Naushina counsel for respondents 2 to 4. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (28.4.2015) By assessment order dated 25.3.2015 passed by respondent No.4 fbr^the assessment years 2007-2008 to 2013- 2014demand notice has been issued asking the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 18,71,600 (Eighteen Lakh Seventy One Thousand Six Hundred Only) for the assessment year 2007- 2008, Rs. 1,47,540 (One Lakh Fourty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Fourty Only) for the assessmeht year 2008-2009, Rs. 9,61,270 (Nine Lakh Sixty One Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Only) for the assessment year 2009-2010, Rs. 74,28,940 (Seventy Four Lakh Twenty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Fourty Only) for the assessment year 2010-2011, Rs. 65,20,830 (Sixty Five Lakh Twenty Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Only) for the assessmentyear2011-2012, Rs. 27,02,740 (Twenty Seven Lakh • I ^' ^f ? -•2.- Two Thousand Seven Hundred Fourty Only) for the assessment year 2012-2013 and Rs. 87,55,750 (Eighty Seven Lakh Fifty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Only) for the assessment year 2013-2014. According to the petitioner, an un-reasoanble high pitched assessment has been made by the assessing officer i.e. respondent No.4 herein. 2. Counsel fqr l:he petitioner submits that against the assessment order the petitioner has preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 vide Annexure P-3 and if the effect and operation of the demand notice is not stayed, respondent No.4 will take coercive steps against him for recovery of disputed demand and his property and the bank accounts are likely to be attached. He submits that till the decision of the appeal of the petitioner, the respondents may be directed not to take any coercive steps against him for recovery of disputed demand. According to the counsel for the petitioner, instruction No. 96 still covers the cases in which high pitched assessments are made and relying on the same circular various High Courts have granted stay in favour of the assessees. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision o¥Delhi High Court in the matter of Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & others reported in (2010) 324 ITR 247, decision of Rajsthan High Court in the matter of His Late Highness Bflaharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji ^ z— Of Mewar vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & others reported in (1997) 223 ITR 192 (Raj), decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Northern Coalfields Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax and others reported in (2015) 25 ITJ 492 (MP) and the order dated 30.9.2014 passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 14939/2014 (Municipal Corporation, Satna vs. Union of India and others). 3. Coupsel fc)r|tt-l6 respondents on instructions submits that instead of keeping this petition pending it may be disposed of as the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 and that duringthe pendency of the appeal no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 4. Considering the submissions made by the parties, present petition is disposed dfwith a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the pending appeal of the petitioner expeditiously and till the decision on the said appeal the respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner for recovery of disputed demand keeping the demand notice in abeyance. 5. In view of above, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- PritinkerDiwak Judge er ^ "