Thrissur Expressway Limited V. The Income Tax Officer and 3 others

WP/1673/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Thrissur Expressway Limited, represented by its director, M. Prudhvi Kumar Reddy, who is the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the actions of the Income Tax Department, specifically the issuance of a demand notice and the rejection of a stay on that notice. The demand notice was issued following an assessment order for the Assessment Year 2018-19, which made certain additions to the petitioner's income. The petitioner appealed this assessment but also sought a stay on the demand notice, which was initially rejected due to non-payment of a required percentage of the disputed demand. The court's decision allows for a re-evaluation of the stay request at the appellate level.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 753453 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K MAMATA; B MUKHERJEE
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJA SHEKAR SALVAJI
• Keywords: Arbitrary; Bad in law; Illegal; Violative of Principles of Natural Justice; Without jurisdiction; Writ of Mandamus; Stay of demand note
• Section: 143(3); 1448; 220(6)

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY 1. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), sth Floor, Signature Towers, Sy.No.6(P) of Kondapur, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Serlingampally(M),-RR District, Hyderabad. 2. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax Range 2, 6\"' Floor, Signature Towers, Sy.No.6(P) of Kondapur, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Serlingampally(M), RR District, Hyderabad. 3. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre ( NaFAC) 4. Union of lndia, Department of Revenue, Represented by its Secretary (Revenue)' North Block' New Delhi ...RE''.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitut{on of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewiih, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the 1't respondent in passing order ITBA/CO l AlF 11712021- 2211O37622649(1 ) date 08-12-2021 as arbitrary illegal bad in law without jurisdiction violative Of principles of natural justice and to consequently set aside the same and grant stay of demand note ITBA/ASTlsl15612021-2211032558707(1) dated 20-04- 202'l passed by 1't respondent. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay demand note ITBA/ASTlsl15612021-2211032558707(1 ) dated 20-04-2021 passed by 1\"t respondent pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. RAJA SHEKAR RAO SALVAJI Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3: Ms. K. MAMATA Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI B. MUKHERJEE The Court made the following: ORDER WRIT PETITION NO: 1673 OF 2022 Between: Thrissur Expressway Limited, Rep. by its Director M. Prudhvi Kumar Reddy, Registered Off: # 1-80/40/SP/58-65, Shilpa Homes Layout, Gachibowli, Hyderabad-32. ...PETITIONER AND THE HONOURABLE SIII JUSTIC E UJJAL BHUYAN ANI) t llri Ito o URAI]LE SItI JI.iS'|ICE VEN KAT IIS I I Wr IL., REDDY ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Uiial Bhuyan) Heard Mr. Raja Shekar Rao Salvaji, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. K. Mamata, leamed Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department, for respondent nos.l, 2 and 3; and Mr. B. Mukherjee, leamed counsel for respondent no.4. 2, Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly, 'the Act' hereinafter) assessed within the jurisdiction of respondent no. I . For the Assessrnent Year 20 I 8- 19, the National e-Assessment Center, Delhi passed the Assessment Order on 20.04.2021 under Section 143(3) read with Section 1.448 of the Act making certain additions while assessing the income of petitioner at Rs.90,75,04,3901. 3. It is submitted that against the aforesaid assessment order dated 2O.O4.2O2|,petitioner has preferred appeal before the 3'd respondent, i.e., Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center on 12.08.2021 which is stated to be pending. I Writ Petition No.l673 of 2022 ) UB,J & AVR,J wp ]673_2A22 4. In the meanwhile, respondent no'1 issued Demand Notice dated 04.|0,202|callinguponthepetitionertopayanamountof Rs.35,18,16,080'00 in terms of the Assessment Order' 5. Against the aforesaid demand notice'' petitioner filed a petition for stay on 02'12'2021 under Section 220(6) of the Act before respondent no.l llowever' by the order dated 08'122021' the said prayer was rejected on the ground that petitioner has not paid 15% of the disputed demand and hence petitioner is not eligible for stay of 6. Aggrieved, present Writ Petition hqs been filed' 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, we are reluctant to interfere with the order dated 08,12.2021 passed by respondent no'l rejecting the petition for stay fi1ed by the petitioner' However' we are of the view that since appeal of the petitioner is pending before the respondent no'3' petitioner may file a fresh application for stay before the appellate authority hearing the appeal, and in the event ofsuch an application being filed within a period offifteen (15) days from to-day' the same shall be considered by respondent no'3 expeditiously within a period of two (02) months from the date of filing of the application and in accordance with law' No further order is cailed for' 8 The Writ Petition is disposed of' No order as to costs' demand. 9. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. 3 //TRUE COPY' SD/.K.ONESIM ASSTSTA%REGTSTRAR SECT]ON OFFICER To, 1. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), sth Floor, Signature Towers, Sy.No.6(p) of ^ 59n9gprr, opp. BotanicatGardeni, Sertinsampairy(vl-nn oiriii.t]iruoJiiiiro z rne Hflncrpar uommissioner of lncome Tax Range 2, 66 Floor, siqnatirre Io^*St.,Sy.No.6(p) of .Kondapur, Opp. BotanicaiCiiOens,-S\"Aind\"rjrirf Vi, RR Dlstrict, Hyderabad. 3 The commissioner of. rncome]q (Appears) rncome Tax Department, Nationar . Faceless Appeal Centre ( NaFAC) ' ' 4. The s_ecretary (Revenue), Union rif rndia, Department of Revenue, North Brock, New Delhi. i. 9n\" CC to .Sri Raia. Shekar Rao Salvaji, Advocate tOpUCl 6. One CC to Ms. K. fvtamata, SC for lncome Tax Dep'artmeni 1OeUCl 7. One CC to Sri B. Mukheriee. Advocate tOpUCt B. one cc to sri Namavarapu Rajeshwari Rao, Assistant Soricitor Generar loPUCl 9. Two CD Copies . 10. One Spare Coov CHR {x ' UB,J & AVR,.J wp_167j_2022 I I / ; -/ HIGH COURT DATED:1710112022 ORDER W.P.No.1673 o12022 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS '1$E l; tAiS t a: I 2t}!? 25 JIN t: ' ,. - .,. -r--,:. K "