M/S U S K CONSTRUCTION COMPANY V. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/4936/2022

AI Insights

The case involves M/S. U.S.K. Construction Company, represented by its partner Mr. Udaya Shetty, who filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1. The petitioner challenged the orders dated 18.08.2021 and 16.11.2021, which pertained to the waiver of a statutory deposit pending appeal and a revision order respectively. The petitioner argued that the revision authority's order was a non-speaking order and did not adequately address the high-pitched nature of the assessment or the genuine hardship claimed by the assessee. The court found that the revision authority's order was indeed non-speaking and did not comply with the established instructions for such cases, leading to the decision to quash the order and restore the proceedings for reconsideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 754174 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: GAUTAM BHARADWAJ
• Keywords: High-pitched assessment; Income Tax; Revision; Statutory deposit; Waiver; Writ petition
• Section: ITBA/RCV/F/17/2021-22/1034973441(1); ITBA/ASK/F/73/2021-22/1036972223(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.4936/2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN : M/S. U.S.K. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY HAVING OFFICE AT 13-2-1A 16, VISHWAS TOWER, 1ST FLOOR, COURT ROAD, AJJARAKADU, UDUPI – 576 101. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, MR.UDAYA SHETTY. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. GAUTAM SHREEDHAR BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE) AND : 1. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), 3RD FLOOR, C.R.BUILDING, QUEEN’S ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, ALBUQUERQUE HOUSE, OPP. FORUM MALL, PANDESHWARA, MANGALURU – 575 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) 2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 18.08.2021 BEARING NO. ITBA/RCV/F/17/2021-22/1034973441(1) AND DATED 16.11.2021 BEARING NO. ITBA/ASK/F/73/2021- 22/1036972223(1) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES VIDE ANNX-B AND K RESPECTIVELY. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- O R D E R The petitioner has impugned the Assessing Officer’s [the second respondent and referred to as the AO] order on waiver of the statutory deposit pending appeal and the order in revision. The AO’s order is dated 28.07.2021 [Annexure-B] and the order in revision by the first respondent is dated 16.11.2021 [Annexure-K]. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has impugned the High Pitched assessment and the petitioner’s appeal is pending consideration. Insofar as the statutory deposit, 3 the petitioner, as is required in law, has submitted necessary application before the AO for waiver which is rejected, and the petitioner’s revision petition is also rejected but affording four equal monthly installments subject to the condition that these four equal installments must be paid before 31.01.2022. 3. The learned counsel further submits that in terms of the instructions issued by the concerned viz., Instruction dated 02.02.1993, the first respondent can interfere with the AO’s order on deposit in exceptional circumstances viz., where assessment order appears to be unreasonably high pitched or where there is genuine hardship caused to the assessee. Though subsequent instructions are issued wherein certain terms of the Instructions dated 02.02.1993 are modified, the aforesaid instructions remain undisturbed. It has been consistently held by the Courts based on these instructions that the first respondent must examine a 4 request as against the two requirements. But in the present case, the first respondent by a non speaking order, has rejected the petitioner’s application. Neither the high pitched nature of the assessment nor the question of genuine hardship is examined. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents is unable to contest the argument based on the Instructions and the arguments that the first respondent’s impugned order is a non speaking order. In which event, the first respondent’s order must be quashed and the petition restored for reconsideration observing that the petitioner’s request must necessarily be considered in the light of the Instructions dated 02.02.1993 more specifically Instruction-B sub-rule[iii]. Therefore the following: ORDER [a] The petition is allowed in part and the order bearing No.ITBA/ ASK/F /73/ 5 2021-22/1036972223[1] of the first respondent – the revision authority [Annexure-K] is quashed. [b] The proceedings are restored to the First respondent for reconsideration as aforesaid. The petitioner shall appear, without further notice, before the first respondent on 11.04.2022. [c] It is needless to observe that the proceedings being restored, no coercive measures shall be taken for enforcing deposit of 20% until the conclusion of the proceedings before the first respondent. SD/- JUDGE AN/- "