SUKANTI EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),HYDERABAD

WP(C)/35045/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Sukanti Educational and Charitable Trust, Subarnapur, the petitioner, who sought to quash a notice under Section 226 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an account statement issued by the Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Sambalpur. The petitioner also requested the disposal of a stay application and a refund of Rs.75,913.99. The dispute arose from an assessment order by the Assessing Authority, which led the petitioner to appeal and seek a stay on the disputed demand. The Income Tax Department contended that the petitioner had already approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad, making the writ petition unnecessary. The court found that the petitioner had taken appropriate steps by appealing and seeking a stay, but no action had been taken on these requests, leading to the initiation of garnishee proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 747444 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-11-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: R CHIMANIKA
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAY; K K SAHOO
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Garnishee Proceeding; Income tax exemption; Stay Application
• Section: 226

Judgement Text

" Page 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 35045 of 2023 Sukanti Educational and Charitable Trust, Subarnapur ….. Petitioner Mr. S. Ray, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. K.K. Sahoo, Advocate Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad & Ors. ….. Opposite Parties Mr. R. Chimanika, Sr. Standing Counsel CORAM: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN ORDER 01.11.2023 Order No. 1 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. S. Ray, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. K.K. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R. Chimanika, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the proceedings under Section 226-notice under Annexure-1 issued by opposite party no.3-Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Sambalpur as well as the account statement for the period from 01.08.2023 to 16.10.2023 under Annexure-2, and further to issue direction to opposite party no.1 to dispose of the Stay Application dated 18.03.2020 forthwith and refund of Rs.75,913.99 to the bank account of the petitioner. 4. Mr. S. Ray, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Page 2 of 3 petitioner vehemently contended that against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bhubaneswar and also moved an application for stay realization of the disputed demand before the Assessing Authority, which was rejected vide order dated 03.03.2020 by the Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Sambalpur for non-deposit of 20% of the total demand. Thereafter, on 18.03.2020, the petitioner filed a petition praying for consideration of stay of demand before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Hyderabad. It is averred that while said petition is pending, garnishee proceeding under Section 226 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been initiated. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. 5. Mr. R. Chimanika, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department contended that since the petitioner has already moved Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad vide Annexure-8, there is no justification to file this writ petition by the petitioner. 6. Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties but, however, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds that against the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Authority, the petitioner approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bhubaneswar by filing appeal and also moved an application for grant of stay realization of the disputed demand before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Hyderabad, but no action has yet been taken thereon and the Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Sambalpur has Page 3 of 3 initiated garnishee proceeding under Section 226 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In any case, since the petitioner has already moved petition for stay of demand before opposite party no.1- Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad vide Annexure-8, liberty is granted to the petitioner to pursue its remedy before the appropriate forum. 7. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Alok (DR. B.R. SARANGI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 02-Nov-2023 10:31:31 Signature Not Verified "