Shree Mahamaya Balasundriji Trilokpur Temple Trust through its official trustee-Sub-Divisional Magistrate Nahan cum Joint Commissioner (Temple) V. National E-Assessment Centre (National Faceless Assessment Centre) and Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)

CWP/3682/2021

AI Insights

The case involves the Shree Mahamaya Balasundriji Trilokpur Temple Trust, which filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice from the National E-Assessment Centre and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption). The demand notice sought a payment of 4,62,72,575/-. The petitioner was granted the facility to pay this demand in installments, following the Central Board of Direct Taxes Instruction No. 1914 and a Supreme Court judgment. The court's decision focused on the procedural aspect of allowing the installment payments and did not delve into the substantive issues of the tax demand itself.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 808466 (HC-HIMACHAL_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & ors. Versus LG Electronics India (P) Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Central Board of Direct Taxes Instruction No. 1914, Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & ors. Versus LG Electronics India (P) Ltd.
• Result in Favour of: Applicant
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VINAY KUTHIALA; VANDANA KUTHIALA
• Assessee Lawyers: ABHIMANYU JHAMBA; SHIVAM PRASHAR
• Keywords: Civil Writ Petition; Demand notice; Income Tax; Installment Payment; Stay of demand
• Section: 1914

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA ON THE 22nd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 3682 of 2021 Between: SHREE MAHAMAYA BALASUNDRIJI TRILOKPUR TEMPLE TRUST THROUGH ITS OFFICIAL TRUSTEE­SUB­ DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE NAHAN CUM JOINT COMMISSIONER (TEMPLE) VILL. TRILOKPUR, P.O. KALA AMB, DISTT. SIRMAUR, H.P. ­ 173 030. ...PETITIONER (BY MR. ABHIMANYU JHAMBA & MR. SHIVAM PRASHAR, ADVOCATES) AND 1. NATIONAL E­ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE) 2 ROOM NO. 401, 2nd FLOOR, E­RAMP JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM DELHI­110 003, THROUGH INCOME TAX OFFICER 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CR BUILDING, HIMALAYA MARG, SECTOR 17E, CHANDIGARH – 160 017. ...RESPONDENTS (BY MR. VINAY KUTHIALA, SENIOR ADVOCATE, WITH MS. VANDANA KUTHIALA, ADVOCATE) This Civil Writ Petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq, passed the following: O R D E R This writ petition has been filed by petitioner­Shree Mahamaya Balasundriji Trilokpur Temple Trust, challenging the demand notice, dated 18th June, 2021, seeking to stay the demand of 4,62,72,575/­ till the disposal of the appeal pending before the ₹ Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 3 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submitted that the revenue­DCIT/ACIT (E) (C­2), Chandigarh, has passed an order on 30th July, 2021, granting facility of installments to the petitioner in terms of the Central Board of Direct Taxes Instruction No. 1914 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & ors. Versus LG Electronics India (P) Ltd., reported in (2018) 3 CTR (SC) 649, requiring the petitioner­assessee to deposit 15% of the total demand, i.e. 69,40,886/­ in the following terms: ₹ “3. Therefore, considering the CBDT instruction No. 1914 dated 02.02.1993 and The Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & ORS. Vs LG Electronics India (P) LTD in (2018) 303 CTR (SC) 649, the assessee is asked to deposit 15% of the total demand i.e. Rs. 69,40,886/­ (15% of Rs. 4,62,72,575/­) in the following manner:­ Rs. 20,00,000 to be deposited by 06.08.2021 (out of this Rs. 5,00,000/­ has been deposited vide challan No. 02855 dated 15.07.2021) and the remaining Rs. 49,40,886/­ (Rs. 69,40,886/­ minus Rs. 20,00,000/­) to be deposited in 18 equal monthly installments w.e.f. 06.08.2021. 4 The remaining demand is stayed till disposal of first appeal subject to payment of installments as mentioned above.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the outstanding installments, if any, shall be positively deposited within a period of fifteen days, failing which the respondents will be free to proceed against the petitioner in the manner they deem fit. 4. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter need not be decided on merits. In case the petitioner fails to deposit the due installments on time, the respondents would be free to proceed against him in accordance with law. 5. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. ( Mohammad Rafiq ) Chief Justice ( Sabina ) Judge October 22, 2021 ( rajni ) "