VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER

CW/15134/2017

AI Insights

Vodafone Mobile Services Limited filed a writ petition against the Income Tax Officer, TDS-2, Jaipur, challenging the ITAT's decision to reject the extension of a stay order related to a tax demand for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The petitioner sought disposal of the writ petition in terms of a previous judgment by the Division Bench of the High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur vs. M/s. Bharti Hexacom Limited, which was favorable to the petitioner. The respondent did not oppose the disposal of the writ petition but suggested that the petitioner should seek relief directly from the ITAT based on the cited judgment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 762435 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur vs. M/s. Bharti Hexacom Limited
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: NIKHIL SIMLOTE
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAKUL KHURANA; ATUL SAXENA
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2012-13; Income Tax; ITAT; Stay order
• Section: 210

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15134/2017 Vodafone Mobile Services Limited Having Its Circle Office At 5th Floor, Gaurav Tower, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur and Having Its Registered Office At Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai, Maharastra, India-400013, Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Ronak Kumavat, Head-Legal & Nodal Department S/o Mr. Chelaram Kumavat, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Plot No. 6, Ayuwansingh Nagar, Maharani Fam, Durgapura, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus The Income Tax Officer, TDS-2, Jaipur ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakul Khurana with Mr. Atul Saxena. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nikhil Simlote. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Order 22/09/2017 The matter comes up on an application (55695/2017) with a prayer that this petition be disposed of in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur vs. M/s. Bharti Hexacom Limited. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.200/2016 decided on 11.07.2017. The petitioner-applicant-Company has laid this petition, aggrieved of the impugned order dated 30.05.2017 whereby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, at Jaipur (hereinafter ‘ITAT’) rejected its application to extend the stay order in the appeal filed under Section 210 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) III Jaipur’s (2 of 3) [CW-15134/2017] order dated 09.12.2014 in respect of a demand relating to Assessment Year 2012-13. It has been submitted that the issue pending adjudication before the ITAT in respect of which the application for extension of stay order has been dismissed is fully covered to the petitioner assessee’s benefit by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur vs. M/s. Bharti Hexacom Limited. (supra) and other connected cases including that of the petitioner company itself i.e. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.1/2014 titled M/s. Vodafone Mobile Services Limited (VSML) vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward TDS-2, Jaipur. Counsel submitted that the petition be accordingly allowed and disposed of in terms of Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur vs. M/s. Bharti Hexacom Limited. (supra). Mr. Nikhil Simlote appearing for the respondent-Income Tax Officer submitted that the petitioner-Company should seek disposal of its appeal pending before the ITAT, if so advised, in terms of the judgment of the D.B. of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur vs. M/s. Bharti Hexacom Limited. (supra). instead of invoking this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Heard. Considered. I am of the view that in the facts of the case it would be appropriate to dispose of this petition directing the ITAT Regular Bench where the appeal of the petitioner-Company is stated to be pending to decide the petitioner-Company’s appeal, within a period of 10 working days from the date of presentation (3 of 3) [CW-15134/2017] of a certified copy of this order. For this purpose an appropriate date be fixed on the petitioner-Company’s application for early listing of the pending before the ITAT. Further in view of the petitioner’s case that the issue before the ITAT is fully covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur vs. M/s. Bharti Hexacom Limited. (supra) it would also be free to move afresh an application for extension of stay order before the ITAT. Appropriate order thereon be passed. This petition as also the application (55695/2017) stand disposed of accordingly. (ALOK SHARMA) J. Himanshu/11. "