U I T KOTA V. ASSISTANT COMMI OF INCOME TAX ORS

CW/18418/2015

AI Insights

The case involves the Urban Improvement Trust (UIT), Kota, challenging an order from the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which had stayed 70% of a demanded amount contingent upon the payment of the remaining 30%. The UIT argued that similar issues had been decided in their favor for different assessment years, and thus the entire demand should be stayed during the appeal's pendency. The respondents contended that substantial relief had already been provided by staying 70% of the demand. The court, after considering the submissions and the interim order previously passed, directed the appellate authority to expedite the decision on the appeal while maintaining the interim relief granted to the petitioner.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 750979 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: PARINITOO JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAKUL KHURANA; ATUL SAXENA
• Keywords: Appeal; Income Tax; Stay order; Writ petition

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 18418 / 2015 Urban Improvement Trust, Kota, through its Assistant Accounts Officer Surya Prakash Goyal S/o Sh. Ghasi Lal Goyal, aged about 58 years, Resident of House no. 1043, Mahaveer Nagar -II, Kota ....Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kota 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, C.R. Building, Rawatbhata Road, Kota. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), C.R. Building, Rawatbhata Road, Kota. ....Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakul Khurana & Atul Saxena For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Parinitoo Jain _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Judgment 06/01/2017 By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 26.11.2015. The order aforesaid was passed on the application submitted by the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. 70% of the amount was stayed on a condition to deposit remaining 30% of the amount, so demanded. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that issue raised in the appeal has already been decided in favour of petitioner-UIT for different assessment years. In view of above, the Assistant Commissioner should have stayed the entire demand during pendency of the appeal. (2 of 3) [CW-18418/2015] This court while issuing notices passed an interim order after considering the arguments and now appeal is matured for final hearing thus present writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the appellate authority to decide the appeal expeditiously. Learned counsel for respondents has opposed the writ petition. She submits that substantial relief has already been given to the petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner stayed 70% of the amount, so demanded. In view of above, no interference may be made in the order impugned herein. If this court is inclined to accept prayer made by the petitioner then atleast a direction may be given for expeditious disposal of the appeal. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 26.11.2015. The order aforesaid was passed on the application preferred by the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. 70% of the amount has been stayed on condition of payment of remaining 30% of the amount. This court while issuing notices passed a detailed interim order in favour of the petitioner on 14th December, 2015. In pursuance of the aforesaid, respondents were restrained to effect the recovery. The appeal is now matured thus, while maintaining the interim order passed by this court on 14th December, 2015, present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the appellate authority to hear and decide the appeal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The parties (3 of 3) [CW-18418/2015] are directed to cooperate with the appellate authority so that appeal may be decided within the period given above. If next date for hearing of the appeal is not fixed then both the parties are directed to appear before the appellate authority on 17th January, 2017 so that appeal can be heard and decided on the aforesaid date or subsequently but within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (M.N. BHANDARI)J. FRBOHRA "