SRI B V SAMPATH V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

WP/30915/2017

AI Insights

The case involves Sri. B. V. Sampath, who filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and the Tax Recovery Officer, challenging the coercive recovery actions for the Assessment Year 2008-2009. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had earlier remanded the case to the CIT (Appeals) with specific directions regarding the examination and verification of tax payments by the assessee. Despite this, the Tax Recovery Officer initiated garnishee proceedings against the petitioner, leading to the filing of this writ petition. The court found that the petitioner had not approached the CIT (Appeals) for a stay on the recovery proceedings and suggested that the appropriate course would be to seek relief from the CIT (Appeals) or the Assessing Authority under the relevant sections of the Income-tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 726931 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. K. Satish Kumar Singh
• Laws Referred To: Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, Section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act, Section 249(4)(a) of the Income-tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: ANAND M
• Keywords: Assessment year 2008-2009; Coercive Action; Garnishee proceedings; Income tax recovery; Interim order; Stay Operation
• Section: 249(4)(a); 220(6); 226(3)

Judgement Text

" 1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI WRIT PETITION No.30915/2017 (T-IT) BETWEEN SRI. B. V. SAMPATH, S/O LATE VALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, NO.16, 28TH CROSS, GEETHA COLONY, JAYANAGAR 4TH BLOCK, BENGALURU – 560 019 … PETITIONER (BY SRI.ANAND KUMAR M., ADV.) AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER (CENTRAL), 3RD FLOOR, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEEN’S ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DTD.3.7.2017 ISSUED BY R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND TO GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO Date of Order 17.07.2017 W.P.No. 30915/2017 Sri. B. V. Sampath, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax & another 2/5 STAY OPERATION OF THE NOTICE DTD.3.7.2017 ISSUED BY R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-C. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Mr. Anand kumar M., Adv. for Petitioner 1. The petitioner-Assessee has approached this court against the coercive action for recovery of income tax for the Assessment Years 2008-2009. The application of the assessee filed before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was decided by the Tribunal on 16.06.2017 only and the appeal of the assess was restored to the file of the learned CIT (Appeals) with certain directions. The directions contained in Para-5.3.3 of the order of the Tribunal dated 16.06.2017 are quoted below for ready reference: 5.3.3. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. K. Satish Kumar Singh restore the impugned appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 to the file of the ld CIT(A) for consideration and adjudication on Date of Order 17.07.2017 W.P.No. 30915/2017 Sri. B. V. Sampath, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax & another 3/5 merits thereof, only after examination and verification of the assessee’s claim that he has paid the taxes due on admitted/returned income for the impugned assessment as per the claim made and details filed before us in appellate proceedings. If after examination and verification by the learned CIT (A), it is found that the claims made in the details filed by the assessee that taxes due on returned income for the impugned assessment years is in order, only then the impugned appeal to be admitted for consideration and adjudication on merits. For the purpose of Section 249(4)(a) of the Act, what is to be seen is that whether taxes due on admitted income have been paid by the assessee and this purpose, taxes would not include interest charged under Sections 234-A, 231-B and 234-C of the Act. It is ordered accordingly. 5. In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment years 2008-09 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Date of Order 17.07.2017 W.P.No. 30915/2017 Sri. B. V. Sampath, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax & another 4/5 Order pronounced in the open court on 16th June, 2017. Sd/- Sd/- (LALIET KUMAR) (JASON P BOAZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER” 2. From the records and from the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner-assessee does not appear to have approached the First Appellate Court namely, the CIT(A) after the remand order passed by the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Appeals). However, in the absence of any effective stay order from the competent Appellate Authority, the Tax Recovery Officer appears to have initiated the impugned garnishee proceedings for recovery of the tax dues from the petitioner debtor in terms of Section 226(3) of the Income- tax Act, by directing the tenants of the present petitioner- assessee to pay the rent due to be paid to the petitioner- assessee and at this stage, the assessee-petitioner landlord has approached this court by way of the present petition. Date of Order 17.07.2017 W.P.No. 30915/2017 Sri. B. V. Sampath, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax & another 5/5 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner- assessee, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner- assessee should first approach the learned CIT (A) by way of stay petition in the pending appeal before him or he can also approach the learned Assessing Authority under Section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act for not treating him as the assessee in default. 4. In view of the aforesaid circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this court, no interference at this stage, in the present petition is called for and therefore, the petition is disposed of with a direction and liberty to the petitioner to approach the said authorities under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, who are expected in law, to pass appropriate orders upon such representation or application of the petitioner-assessee, before them. No costs. Sd/- JUDGE KGR "