SHIV SHANKAR LAL GUPTA V. COMMI OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL ORS

CW/2585/2012

AI Insights

The case involves multiple writ petitions filed by Shiv Shankar Lal Gupta against the Commissioner of Income Tax concerning various assessment orders. The petitioner challenged the interim order of the CIT (Appeals), which required him to deposit 5% of the total assessed amount monthly, despite a stay on 75% of the demand. The petitioner argued that the entire amount should be stayed due to the prolonged appeal process. The respondents contended that the interim relief provided was adequate. The court upheld the interim order and directed the CIT (Appeals) to expedite the decision on the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 751029 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 17-12-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: NIKHIL SIMLOTE
• Assessee Lawyers: N L AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Assessment Order; CIT(Appeals); Income Tax; Interim order

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH [1] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2585/2012 Shiv Shankar Lal Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. [2] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2580/2012 Shiv Shankar Lal Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. [3] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2581/2012 Shiv Shankar Lal Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. [4] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2582/2012 Shiv Shankar Lal Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. [5] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2607/2012 Shiv Shankar Lal Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 17/12/2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr. N.L. Agrawal, for petitioner Mr. Nikhil Simlote, for respondents *** It is a case where assessment order was passed against petitioner. It has been challenged by maintaining appeal before CIT (Appeals). An application for interim prayer was made. The said application has been decided vide order dated 02.05.2012. It is stated that after additions, amount of more than 4.5 crores have already been paid by petitioner. It is out of the total amount assessed in different 2 assessment orders. The assessment order is likely to be set aside in appeal before CIT (Appeals). However, by an interim order, petitioner has been directed to deposit 5% of the total demand every month starting from May, 2012 onwards for five months and after that balance of 75% of the demand has been stayed till decision of the appeal. In fact, entire amount should have been stayed by the appellate authority because hearing of the appeal takes time. Learned Counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that CIT (Appeals) has passed interim order in favour of the petitioner. 75% of the demand has been stayed till decision of the appeal, thus, appropriate relief has been granted. In the background aforesaid, prayer of the petitioner to restrain the recovery of the entire amount of assessment may not be accepted. I have heard rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and find that out of the total amount of 18 crores so 3 assessed in different assessment orders, petitioner has already deposited 4.5 crores towards additions. The interim order exists in his favour, but petitioner is not satisfied as he is required to pay 5% of the assessed amount every month before 25.05.2012 and subsequently before 20th day of every month though 75% of the demand amount has been stayed. In my opinion, the interim order passed by the CIT (Appeals) needs no interference at this stage, but looking to the issue raised by petitioner in the appeal and before this court, I deem it proper to direct the CIT (Appeals) to decide the appeal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. With the aforesaid, writ petitions so as stay applications are disposed of. [M.N.BHANDARI], J. FRBOHRA/2585CWP2012.doc Certificate: “All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.” FATEH RAJ BOHRA, P.A. "