Sri Ganesh Temple, V. The Union Of India,

WP/4053/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sri Ganesh Temple, represented by Sri Koppula Vinod, challenging an order from the Income Tax Department demanding a payment of Rs. 30,00,000. The temple argued that it is exempt under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act and that its income and expenditures were not properly assessed. The High Court considered the financial status of the temple and previous non-insistence on the demand by the authorities. The court's decision to reduce the deposit amount and extend the deadline was influenced by similar precedents and the temple's financial condition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 731652 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Sri Venkatesuara Swamg Vari Deosthanam v. Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance, G.O.I
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, Section 12A of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K ARVIND KUMAR; A RADHA KRISHNA; A RAMA REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA
• Keywords: Exemption; Income Tax; Mandamus; Natural Justice; Writ petition
• Section: 12A; 220(2)

Judgement Text

"[ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 4053 OF 2024 Between Sri Ganesh Temple, Regimental Bazar, Secunderabad, rep Officer, Sri Koppula Vinod, S/o (L) Ramachandra Reddy, 1 Nagar, Dilsukh Nagar, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER AND '1 . The Union Of lndia, Minrstry of Finance rep rts Princtpal Secretary, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Ayakar Bhavan, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad. 3. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Exemptions), Ayakar Bhavan, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad. 4. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals), Ayakar Bhavan, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad. 5. The lncome Tax Officer, Exemptron Ward 1(4), Ayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad. 6. The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, 9-1-7O,74,7511 , Sarolini Devi Road, Secunderabad ...RESP.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or Writ in the nature of Mandamus duly declaring the impugned order vide ITBA/ CO[M/ F I 1712023-241 1 06061 3499( 1 ) dated 07.O2.2024, directing the petitioner temple to pay a sum of Rs. 30,00,00O1 (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) as illegal, arbitrary, and against the principles of natural .iustice and consequently set aside the same in the interest of .iustice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavrt filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned order vide ITBA/COtM/F/1 712023' 24l1060613499( 1 ) dated by 1-6 its Executive 411, P'agalhi 07.O2.2024, directing the petitioner temple to pay a sum of Rs. 30,00,0001 (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt p.RAMA SHARANA SHARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI K.ARVIND KUMAR FOR SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy. SOL|C|TOR GEN. OF tNDtA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 5: SRI A.nen4e KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR CIT Counsel for the Respondent No.6: -- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.4O53 OF 2024 ORDER (per Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr.P.Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr.A.Radha Krishna, learned Senior Standing Counsel along with Mr.A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 5. Perused the material available on record 2. The present writ petition which has been filed assailing the order annexure P- 1 , dated 07 .O2.2024, passed by the 3'd respondent, whereby the application under Secti on 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, seeking exemption from the payment of the demald raised by the assessing officer has been decided. In the course of deciding the said application, the 3.d respondent ordered lor payment of Rs.30,00,O00/- in two instailments against the demald of Rs.2,09,86 ,92O l-. It was further ordered by - 2 PSK,J & NTR,J W.P.No.4o53 o.f 2024 the 3.a respondent that the two installments have to be paid lrrstly by 12.O2.2024 of an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- arrd other by 11.O3.2024 of an amount of Rs.15,OO,00O/- In the event, if the aJoresaid deposit being made, the execution of the demand notice raised, would remain stayed automatically up till 3O.O9.2O24, or till the appeal preferred by the petitioner which is pending before the 4th respondents is decided whichever being earlier. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioner through this writ petition. 3. Firstly, the ground of challenge primarily is that the petitioner establishment being a temple is one which stands exempted under Section l2A of the Act. Secondly, the temple does not have that much income as has been assessed by the authority concerned. Thirdly, the officer concerned in the course of assessing the income of the petitioner-tempie did not properly appreciate the expenditure incurred by the petitioner-temp1e. Lastly, it was contended that since the appeal of the petitioner against the assessing officer's order dated 17 .O3.2O2O 3 PSK,J & NTR,J W.P.No,4O53 oJ 2O24 pending before the 4t]\" respondent is decided, the authorities may waive the payment of interim amount. 4. Taking into consideration the contents of the impugned order, what is evidently clear is that all the contentions raised by the petitioner to the extent permissible within the power of the 3.d respondent were duly considered and the financial condition of the petitioner-temple was also appreciated by the authority and it was in this context that the two installments were awarded. 5. Perusal of the order would show that the condition imposed was subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.30,0O,O0O/- by the 11.O3.2024 and the execution of the remaining part of the order would remain stayed till 30.o9.2024. 6. Considering the entirety of the factual matrix of the case and also appreciating that the appeal has been preferred by the petitioner before the 4tn respondent on 19.O2.2O2O, i.e., almost three and half years back. During al1 this time, there has been no demand as such insisted --- 4 PSK,J & MTR,J W.P.No.4O53 of 2O24 upon by the authorities concerned and the petitioner's application under Section 220(21 having been recently decided on 07 .O2.2O24. In the recent past, this Court in the case of Srr Venkatesuara Swamg Vari Deoasthqnam o. Income Tax Departmen Ministry of Finance, G.O.I,| this Court vide its order dated 23.O8.2023 disposed of the said writ petition with an interim protection of not insisting upon the demand raised till the appeal is finally decided. 7. In the instant case, since the authorities have taken a lenient view of two installments so far as the amount to be deposited for the interim stay and looking to the financial status of the petitioner-temple, we are inclined to interfere with the impugned order to the extent that instead of Rs.3O,O0,0OO/- as has been ordered by the 3'd respondent, we reduced the amount to Rs. 15,00,000/-. Further the time granted to the petitioner for depositing of the said amount of Rs.15,0O,000/- stands extended instead of I2.O2.2O24 up till 15.03.2024. Subject to the petitioner 'w.p.No.2r8a2 of 2023, dated 23.O8.2023 5 PSI(,J & IUTR,J W,P.No,4053 of 2024 depositing of Rs.15,00,000/- by 15.O3.2024, the execution of the order of assessment shali remain stayed till the appeal is decided. In the event, if the amount is not deposited, the order of this Court in the present writ petition shall automatically lose it efficacy. 8. Considering the lact that the appeal is already three and half years old, it is expected that the 4Lh respondent shall take up the appeal on priority basis and decide the same at the earliest. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, sha1l stand closed. SD/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGI AR //TRUE COPY// sEcTto OFFICER To 1. The Principal Secretary, Union Of lndia, lvlinistry of Finance, New Delhi 2. The Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Ayakar Bhavan, Basheer Bagh' Hyderabad 3. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Exemptions), Ayakar Bhavan, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad. 4. Thd Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals), Ayakar Bhavan, Basheer Bagh, Hvderabad. The lncome Tax Offrcer, Exemplion Ward 1(4), Ayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad. One CC to SRI P.RAi 4A SHARANA SHARI /A, Advocate [OPUCI One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy SOLICITOR GEN. OF INDIA toPUCl bne CC to SRI A RAMA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR CIT [OPUC] Two CD Copies 6 7 8 9 PSK. GJ HIGH COURT DATED:1 610212024 oe 16E Sr4 14: ?3 nt.a ry4 t, t Ol:,cpATC xco * ORDER WP.No.4053 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. 1u s z'1 h,y= c i.) C tr "