Rajiv Travels v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-2, Bellary / Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kalaburgi / Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Kalaburgi
[Citation -2017-LL-0706-10]
| Citation | 2017-LL-0706-10 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | Rajiv Travels |
| Respondent Name | Income-tax Officer, Ward-2, Bellary / Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kalaburgi / Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Kalaburgi |
| Court | HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 06/07/2017 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | disputed amount • stay of demand of tax • recovery of tax |
| Bot Summary: | The petitioner has approached this court for various reliefs particularly a writ of mandamus seeking a direction to respondent No.1 to vacate the recovery mode under section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, vide Annexure-K and also vacate the demand recovery vide call memo as per Annexure-N dated 12.06.2017 and also directing the respondents No.1 to 3 to grant stay as prayed for by the petitioner vide Annexure-C dated 23.01.2017. Annexure-C discloses that the petitioner has made representation seeking stay of the demand under section 220(6) on the ground that, the petitioner has preferred an appeal against the assessment order for the assessment year 2014-15 4 before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kalaburagi. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this court the order dated 30.03.2017 issued from the office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax wherein it is stated that, if an appeal is preferred questioning the assessment, if the appellant deposits 15 of the disputed demand, as a matter of right he is entitled for stay. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court that, he has already deposited 15 of the disputed amount on 12.06.2017 as per Annexure-N produced before this Court. In view of the facts and circumstances, it is just and necessary to direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the document Annexure-M dated 02.05.2017 wherein the petitioner categorically stated about deposit of 15 made by him, considering Annexure-M, wherein he categorically 5 stated about as to how he has deposited 15 of the total demand by the department. In view of the above said circumstances, it is just and necessary to direct the respondent No.1 and 2 to consider Annexure-M with reference to the deposit of 15 of the total demand and shall pass appropriate orders on the said stay application filed by the petitioner within 2 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioner is directed to furnish Annexures M and N, along with a copy of this order to respondents 1 and 2. |