THRISSUR EXPRESSWAY LTD V. The Income Tax Officer

WP/1712/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Thrissur Expressway Limited, which challenged the actions of the Income Tax Department regarding an assessment order and a subsequent demand notice. The petitioner argued that the demand notice was arbitrary, illegal, and violated principles of natural justice. The Income Tax Officer had issued a demand notice based on an assessment order that added a significant amount to the petitioner's reported income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The petitioner had appealed this assessment but sought a stay on the demand notice, which was initially rejected due to non-payment of a required percentage of the disputed demand. The High Court, after hearing the arguments, decided not to interfere with the Income Tax Officer's decision but suggested that the petitioner could seek a stay from the appellate authority where the appeal against the assessment order is pending.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 769177 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K MAMATA; B MUKHERJEE
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJA RAO SALVAJI
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Stay of demand; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 143(3); 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 TWENTYTWO PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A,VENKATESHWARA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 1712 OF 2022 Between: Thrissur Expressway Limited, Rep. by its Director M Prudhvi Kumar Reddy, Registered Off : #1-80/40/5P/58-65, Shilpa Homes Layout, Gachibowli, HYderabad-32 ...PETrroNER AND 1. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), 5th 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 2,6th Floor, Signature Towers, Sy.No.6(P) of Kondapur, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Serlingampally(M), RR District, Hyderabad. 3. The Commissioner of lncome Tax(Appeals) lncome Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NaFAC). 4. Union of lndia, Department of Revenue, Represented by its Secretary (Revenue), North Block, New Delhi. ...RES'ONDENTS I Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, 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 1st Respondent in passing order ITBA/COMIFl1712021' 2211037622772(1) date 0811212021 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 letter ITBA/RCV/F/1712021-2211036150300(1) dated O4l1Ol2O21 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 letter ITBA/RCVlFl1712021-22l1036150300( 1)dated 04-10-2021 passed by 1tt Respondent pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAJA SHEKAR RAO SALVAJI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,2 & 3: SMT. K. MAMATA, S.C, FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.4: Mr. B. MUKHERJEE The Cou( made the following: ORDER THE HONO UILABLE SRI JUSTIC E U.IJ AL I}HUYAN T HONO RABI,E SRI .IU S'TICE A. VEN I(A'tESHWARA IIEDDY Writ Petition No.l1l2 of 2022 B: (Per Hon'ble sri Justice Ujial Bhuyan) Heard Mr. Raja Shekar Rao Salvaji, leamed counsel for the petitioner; Ms. K. Mamata, learned 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 utrde t' lht lnto*t Tax Act' 1961 (briefly, 'the Act' hereinafter) assessed within the jurisdiction of respondent no. 1 . For the Assessment Year 201 7- 1 8, the National e-Assessment Center, Delhi passed the Assessment Order on 23.12.2019 under Section 143(3) of the Act stating that the petitioner had underreported the income and making further addition of Rs.32,79,23,250/- towards income earned during the period' 3. It is submitted that against the aforesaid assessment order dated 23.l2.2l1g,petitioner has preferred appeal before the 3'd respondent' i.e., Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center on 22.01.2020 which is stated to be pending' ANI) , .., UB,J & AVR,] wP-1712_fr)2 4 In the meanwhile, respondent no'1 issued Demand Notice dated O4.lO.2O2l calling upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.10,36,44,970.00 in terms of the Assessment Order' 5. Against the aforcsaid den.rand notice' petitioner filed a petition for stay on 02.12.202 I under Section 220(6) of the Act before the respondent no.1. Flowever, by the ordcr dated 08'12'2021' 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 demand. Aggrieved, present writ petition hag been filed' 6 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, we are reluctant to interfere with the order dated 08.l2.2OZl passed by respondent no'l rejecting the petition for stay filed by the petitioner. However, we are of the view that since appeal of the petitioner is pcnding before the respondent no'3' petitioner may file a fresh application tbr stay before the appellate authority hearing the appeal, and in the event of such an application being filed within a period of fifteen ( l5) days from to-day' the same shall be considered by the 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 called for' 8. The Writ Petition is disposed of' No order as to costs' i!----, U B,J & AVR,J wP_1712_2O22 9. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this 3 / SD/.K.ONESIM ASSISTANHEGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, M 1. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), 5th Floor, 9!O1q1up-r9',v9fs: 9y'ryorg,(llof Kondapur, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Serlingampally(M)' RR ulstnct, Hyoeraoao' 2. The Princioal commissioner of lncome Tax, Range 2,6th Floor, Signature ' i;;#: Si.iiosipl ii%ntapur' opp Botanical G-ardens, serlinsampallv(M)' RR District, HYderabad. 3. The Commissioner of lncome Tax(Appeals) lncome Tax Department' National Faceless Appeal Centre (NaFAC), Hyderabad' 4. Union of lndia, Department of Revenue, Represented by its Secretary (Revenue), North Block, New Delhi. 5. One CC to SRI RAJA SHEKAR RAO SALVAJI, Advocate IOPUC] 6. One CC to SMT. K. MAMATA, S.C. for lncome Tax IOPUC] //TRUE COPY// 7. One CC to Mr. B. MUKHERJEE, Advocate (OPUC) 8. Two CD CoPies. 9. One SPare CoPY. r.x- _ __ Writ Petition, shall stand closed. HIGH COURT DATED:1710112022 ORDER WP.No.1712 ot 2022 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 2 t ,tltq znzz ( .ti TATA 't: ,) / "