M/S THE ABRAHAM MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL TRUST V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WA/3831/2019

AI Insights

The case involves M/s The Abraham Memorial Educational Trust, which appealed against an interim order requiring them to deposit 20% of the demanded amount as a precondition to proceeding with their writ petition. The appellant challenged the order dated 06.06.2019 that directed them to pay 20% of the demand. The High Court of Karnataka, upon hearing the preliminary arguments, decided that the matter should be addressed by the learned Single Judge, either on the interim prayer or the main matter, without hindering the appellant's right to contest the demand.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 754451 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Karnataka High Court Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JEEVAN NEERALAGI
• Assessee Lawyers: CHAITHANYA K
• Keywords: Deposit demand; Income Tax; Interim order; Writ Appeal
• Section: 4

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR W.A. NO.3831/2019 (T-IT) BETWEEN: M/S THE ABRAHAM MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL TRUST SINGENA AGRAHARA VIA HUSKUR ROAD, APMC YARD, HUSKUR PO ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE 2 BENGALURU - 560 099 (REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE JESUS SUDHIR LALL AGED ABOUT 39 EYARS S/O SUDHIR MADHAVJI LALL) ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHAITHANYA K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), 6TH FLOOR UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) ROOM NO.606, 6TH FLOOR UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE P. KALINGA RAO ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE 2 P KALINGA RAO ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-14, BMTC BUILDING 5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE - 560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 09.09.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.33598/2019 (T-IT). THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Heard Sri.Chaithanya K, learned counsel appearing for appellant and Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralagi, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Perused the records. 2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 09.09.2019 passed in W.P.No.33598/2018 whereunder learned Single Judge has passed the following order: \"Petitioner is directed to deposit 20% of the amount demanded in Annexure- A within a period of six weeks from 3 today. Such deposit is subject to result of the writ petition. Issue notice to the Respondents.\" 3. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of case papers, we notice that appellant who is the writ petitioner in aforesaid writ petition had filed said writ petition calling in question the order dated 06.06.2019 whereunder the appellant-assessee was directed to pay 20% of the demand. Thus, entire writ petition revolved around as to whether appellant can be called upon to deposit 20% of the demand or not. As such directing the petitioner by impugned order to deposit 20% of the amount would definitely truncate the very filing of writ petition itself. As such we are of the considered view that it would be apt and appropriate to permit the petitioner to approach the learned Single Judge for appropriate orders being passed either on interim prayer or on main matter itself, since the very writ petition itself had been filed questioning the order dated 06.06.2019 under which appellant-assessee had been directed to pay 20% of the 4 demand. In the event of such prayer being made before the learned Single Judge, we have no hesitation as to why said prayer would not be considered. With this observation, writ petition stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any, stands consigned to records. SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE DR "