Virupa Townships V. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 2, Vijayawada

WP/3186/2011

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Virupa Townships, represented by its Managing Partner, Mr. N. Ramakoti, who filed a writ petition against the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 2, Vijayawada, and others. The petitioner sought to prevent the recovery of a disputed tax of \\u20b92.27 crores pending the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Vijayawada, and to declare the order of the second respondent as null and void. The petitioner had filed an application for a stay on the tax collection, which was rejected, leading to this writ petition. The court decided not to interfere with the fifth respondent's actions due to the proximity of the scheduled hearing for the revision application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 796986 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Central Board for Direct Taxes (CBDT) circular instructions
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: J V PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: S DWARAKANATH
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2008-09; Attachment of bank accounts; Income Tax; Revision; Stay of collection
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.3186 of 2011 February 15, 2010 Between: M/s.Virupa Townships, Vijayawada, represented by its Managing Partner, Mr.N.Ramakoti … Petitioner And The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 2, Vijayawada And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.3186 of 2011 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) Heard Sri S.Dwarakanath, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri J.V.Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax and, at their request, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. The relief sought for in this writ petition is to direct the fifth respondent not to recover the disputed tax of `2.27 crores pending disposal of the appeal before the third respondent i.e., the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Vijayawada; to declare the order of the second respondent dated 17.1.2011 as null and void and without jurisdiction; and to direct the first respondent to pass an order, giving reasons, on the application filed by the petitioner on 17.12.2010. The petitioner is an assessee on the rolls of the second respondent. For the assessment year 2008-09, the petitioner filed its return before the second respondent reporting a taxable income of ` 55,34,960/- and paid tax thereon. An order of assessment was passed on 29.10.2010 aggrieved by which the petitioner has carried the matter in appeal to the third respondent which is still pending. The petitioner filed an application before the first respondent seeking stay of collection of the tax assessed pending disposal of the appeal by the third respondent. The second respondent, by order dated 17.1.2011, informed the petitioner that, as directed by the first respondent in his letter dated 20.12.2010, the petitioner’s request for stay was rejected, and that he should pay the demand immediately. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner carried the matter in revision to the fourth respondent and it is admitted by Counsel on either side that the revision stands listed for hearing on 17.2.2011. The petitioner’s grievance is, however, on the order of attachment passed by the fifth respondent. They apprehend that, in addition to the bank accounts already attached, the fifth respondent could proceed to attach other bank accounts of the petitioner crippling their entire business in the process. Since the petitioner has already filed a revision against the order dated 17.1.2011 passed by the second respondent on the directions of the first respondent, and as the said revision is slated for hearing on 17.2.2011 within three days from today, we see no reason at this stage to interdict any action which the fifth respondent may take. It would suffice, for the purpose of disposal of the writ petition itself, that the fourth respondent is directed to hear the revision on 17.2.2011, pass orders on the same day, and duly communicate a copy of the order to the petitioner. While several contentions are urged by Sri S.Dwarakanath in challenge to the order of the second respondent, communicating the order of the first respondent, including that the order was passed by the second respondent who did not hear the petitioner; that the circular instructions issued by the Central Board for Direct Taxes (CBDT) would require the matter to be stayed etc., we have not examined any of the contentions on merits since the fourth respondent is seized of the matter and is, pursuant to the aforesaid directions, required to dispose of the revision filed by the petitioner on 17.2.2011. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) _______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) February 15, 2010 YS "