Surayanarayana Devaraj Pande V. The Income Tax Officer Ward 8(3) and The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range 8 and The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) \\u2013 V Bangalore and The Commissioner of Income Tax IV Bangalore

WP/16909/2013

AI Insights

The case involves Surayanarayana Devaraj Pande, the petitioner, who challenged the interim orders issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Bangalore. The petitioner was aggrieved by the tax demand of Rs.1,56,10,860 for the assessment year 2009-10, which was raised under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner filed an appeal along with an application for a stay on the order of assessment and demand. The appellate authority, after hearing the petitioner's counsel, directed the payment of 50% of the outstanding demand as an interim measure. The petitioner contested this decision, leading to the present writ petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 807644 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: MANOJ PUKALE
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Extraordinary Writ Jurisdiction; Income Tax; Interim order; Stay of demand
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" W.P.16909/13 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 16909 OF 2013 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SURAYANARAYANA DEVARAJ PANDE PAN : ABLPP7024R AGE 53 YEARS OCCUPATION BUSINESS ADDRESS : No. 605, PUSHPANJALI 2ND C CROSS, 7TH MAIN, 3RD STAGE 3RD BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 079. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANOJ DEVINDER PUKALE, ADVOCATE) AND : 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(3) 3RD FLOOR, JEEVAN SAMIPGE No.1/1, SAMPIGE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 003. 2 THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 8, 3RD FLOOR, JEEVAN SAMPIGE No.1/1, SAMPIGE ROAD BANGALORE - 560 003. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) – V BANGALORE R No. 314, 3RD FLOOR HMT BHAVAN 59 BELLARY ROAD GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 032. W.P.16909/13 2 4 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IV BANGALORE, R No. A 123 CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING No.1, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001. … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE INTERIM ORDER DT. 15.03.2013 PASSED BY R-3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V BANGALORE IN ANN-H; AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRL.HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Petitioner aggrieved by the orders dt. 15.3.2013 Annexure-H and dt.25.3.2013 Annexure-J in ITA 969/W-8(3)/CIT(A)-V/2011-12 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-V, Bangalore, has presented this petition. 2. Petitioners aggrieved by the demands raised for the assessment years passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act and the demand for payment of Rs.1,56,10,860/- as tax for the assessment year 2009- 10 preferred appeal on 24.1.2012 along with an W.P.16909/13 3 application for stay of the order of assessment and demand until the application was considered and orders passed. However, proceedings in the matter of demand and non-consideration of stay leading to writ petitions filed before this Court for issue of directions are not germane to the decision making in this petition and therefore, no reference is made to them. 3. Pursuant to a direction of this court the Appellate Authority heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner both on IA as well as the appeal on merits and passed the order impugned on the interim application for stay directing payment of 50% of the outstanding demand till the disposal of the appeal which order was clarified in the corrigendum Annexure- J directing the petitioner to pay 50% of the outstanding demand within two days from the date of issue of the order. W.P.16909/13 4 4. The appellate authority having exercised its discretion, judiciously, as can be noticed from the contents of the order Annexure-H, making reference to several material facts and reasons over prima facie case being made out by the revenue, it cannot be said that the exercise of discretion is either illegal or arbitrary so as to call for interference at the hands of this court, in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In my considered opinion, petition being without merit is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE ln "