SRI PUTTASWAMY S P V. ASSISTANT CIT, CIRCLE-3 (1) (1)

WP/2192/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Sri. Puttaswamy S.P., the petitioner, who challenged the high-pitched income assessment by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) to dispose of his appeal within two months and to prevent any coercive actions, including the attachment of his bank accounts, until the appeal was resolved. The petitioner argued that his income was assessed at an excessively high amount compared to what he declared, causing undue hardship. The court referenced the Flipkart India Private Limited case to outline the procedure for handling such disputes and emphasized the need for a timely and fair consideration of the petitioner's stay application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 746246 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Flipkart India Private Limited Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: E I SANMATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: KIRAN
• Keywords: High-pitched assessment; Income Tax; Stay Application; Undue hardship; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 35

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No. 2192/2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN: Sri. Puttaswamy S.P., S/o Late Puttegowda, Aged about 77 years, Setthali Village, Ramnagara District-562160. … Petitioner (By Sri Kiran Kumar K., Advocate) AND: 1. Assistant CIT, Circle-3(1) (1), (formerly 3(2)(1)) Bengaluru, BMTC Building, 80 Feet Road, 6th Block Koramangala, Bengaluru-560 095. 2. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, C/o. Aaykar Seva Kendra, BMTC Building, 80 Feet Road, 6th Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560095. 3. Deputy CIT, Circle 3 (1)(1) Bengaluru, BMTC Building, 80 Feet Road, 6th Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560 095. 2 4. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax Bengaluru-3, BMTC Building, 80 Feet Road, 6th Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560 095. … Respondents (By Sri E.I.Sanmathi, AGA) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to directing the R2 to dispose the appeal filed by the petitioner bearing acknowledgment No.290158731100120 within the time frame of two months time period from the date of such direction issued by this Hon’ble High Court (The Form No.35 and the written submission are herewith furnished as the Annexure-B1 and Annexure-B2 respectively) and etc. This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court, made the following: ORDER The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.2 to dispose off the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of two months. The petitioner has also sought for appropriate direction to the respondents not to initiate any coercive action till disposal of the appeal and has sought for necessary direction to respondent No.1 to withdraw the attachment of the petitioner’s bank accounts as detailed in paragraph No.3 of the prayer column. 3 2. The petitioner submits that the Assessment Order was passed by respondent No.1 on 11.12.2019 and that the appeal was filed before the respondent No.2 on 10.01.2020. The petitioner submits that stay application has been filed before respondent No.2- the Appellate Authority. The petitioner further submits that on 08.10.2020, he has filed an application before respondent No.4 and that no order has been passed. In the interregnum, it is pointed out that there has been attachment of petitioner’s bank accounts. The petitioner submits that he had declared his income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 as specified in ITR-3 as Rs.2,52,470/- and agriculture income of Rs.1,20,000/-. It is submitted that upon scrutiny assessment, the Authority has determined his income as Rs.42,43,31,870/-. The petitioner submits that the said determination would prima-facie indicate to be high pitched and would cause undue hardship. It is submitted that no order has been passed for application of stay and he has not approached PCIT as is evident from Annexure- D3. No action has been taken since 22.09.2020. It is further 4 submitted that the attachment has been resorted to on 21.05.2020 as is evident from the correspondence by his bankers and all of which was without passing any orders on his application for stay. 3. This Court in the case of Flipkart India Private Limited Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others passed in W.P.No.1339-1342/2017 has considered in detail the procedure to be followed wherein, the Assessing Officer grants stay of demand stipulating deposit and the assessee would be at liberty to approach the jurisdictional administrative PCTI/CIT for review of the decision of the Assessing Officer. It is further pointed out that applicable circular, the PCIT has power to relax the condition of deposit in the event of the assessment being high pitched or in case of undue hardship. 4. Taking note of the plea of the petitioner that the assessment is high pitched which prima-facie appears to be a point for consideration, the writ petition is disposed off directing the Authorities concerned to pass 5 necessary order on the application for stay taking note of the procedure delineated in Flipkart case. The consideration of stay both by the Assessing Officer and the PCIT to be completed within a period of two weeks. In the interregnum, no further precipitative steps to be taken by the Authorities. Upon such consideration by the Authorities, the petitioner is at liberty to seek for appropriate remedy. Needless to state that the Authority to bear in mind the observations of the judgment in the case of Flipkart both in letter and spirit. In the event application for stay is rejected, considering the undue hardship that is made out, the appeal may be considered out of turn and also in light of the petitioner being a senior citizen. Sd/- JUDGE PN/VS "