Ramanuj Singh 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(M.P.) and Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Revenue Building, Hosangabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.) and Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines Raipur(C.G.)

WPT/67/2015

AI Insights

The case involves Ramanuj Singh, the petitioner, who challenged the high-pitched income tax assessments made by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, Raipur, for the assessment years 2007-2008 to 2013-2014. The assessments resulted in substantial tax demands totaling over INR 5 crores. Singh appealed against these assessments to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) III, Bhopal. Concerned about potential coercive recovery actions, including the attachment of his property and bank accounts, Singh sought a writ from the High Court to stay the demand notices until his appeal was decided. The court, considering the submissions and precedents cited, decided to stay the coercive recovery actions pending the appeal's outcome.

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 802437 (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 CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (T) No. ^^ /2015 PETITIQNER RESPONDENTS Ramanuj Singh, S/o Shri Rajkumar Singh, Aged About 60 Years, R/0 Near Om Coffee House, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1) Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department of Revenue, Govemment of India, New-Delhi 2) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) III- Revenue Building, Hosangabad Road, Bhopal(M.P.) 3) Commissioner of Incorae Tax, Central Circle, Revenue Building, Hosangabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.) 4) Deputy Coramissioner of Inconie Tax (Central)-I, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines RaipurfC.G.) n/t •C)^1 fr~ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT/WRITS, DIRECTION/ DIRECTION ETC. IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI AND/OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ..?'!;'XB^itet. .^ --sSS^. 't.:. f' ..'-\"^, ' '!1S ' ti-aiysa^ 8 'C,'3S-B!ira; g c^yj^ '•'CSi HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. nflr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (Tl No. 67 of 201 5 PETITIONER Ramanuj Singh VERSUS RESPONDENTS Union of India and others •^ SHri Anand Dadaria counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Naushina counsel for respondents 2 to 4. WRITPETITIONUNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA OR D E R (28.4.2015) By assessment order dated 26.3.2015 passed by respondent No.4 fdr the assessment years 2007-2008 to 2013- 2014 demand notice has been issued asking the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,65,890 (One Lakh Sixty Five Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Only) for the assessment year 2007-2008, Rs. 1,56,050 (One Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Fifty Only) for the assessment year 2008-2009, Rs. 63,96,320 (Sixty Three Lakh Ninety Six Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Only) for the assessment year 2009-2010, Rs. 1,46,75,120 (One Crore Fourty Six Lakh Seventy Five Thousand One Hundred Twenty Only) for the assessment year 2010-2011, Rs. 1,69,05,010 (One Crore Sixty Nine Lakh Five Thousand Ten Only) for the assessment year 2011-2012, Rs. 22,49,520 (Twenty Two Lakh Fourty Nine ^- Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Only) for the assessment year 2012-2013 and Rs. 21,35,840 (Twenty One Lakh Thirty Five Thousand Eight Hundred Fourty 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 for the 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 stilt covers the cases in which high pitched assessments are made and relyjng on the same circutar various High Courts have granted stay in favour of the assessees. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of 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 Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji s 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. Counsel fdr the 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 during fhe 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 of With 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/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge "