Fire Luxur Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru
[Citation -2019-LL-0221-17]

Citation 2019-LL-0221-17
Appellant Name Fire Luxur Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent Name The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru
Court HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 21/02/2019
Assessment Year 2016-17
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags disputed amount • demand notice • interim order • application for stay • garnishee proceedings
Bot Summary: It is further contended that First Appeal has been filed by the petitioner challenging the assessment order and the stay application filed by the -3- petitioner has been disposed of by the respondent on 06.02.2019. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the petition before the First Appellate Authority and during the pendency of the stay application before the First Appellate Authority, the garnishee notices were issued by the respondent. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the department has recovered the amount of Rs.1,48,72,743/- from the bankers of the petitioner on 20.02.2019 by way of a Demand Draft and the same is not encashed so far. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondent to restore back the said amount to the account of the petitioner and permit the petitioner to agitate the matter before the Appellate Authority where the stay application is pending for consideration, directing the First Appellate Authority to dispose of the same within a time frame. The petitioner having deposited ten per cent of the demand, if the balance ten percent is paid which is the order required to be passed by the Competent Officer in terms of the Notification dated 29.02.2016, the same shall be considered by the respondent. Justice will be met if a direction is issued to -5- the petitioner to deposit 10 of the balance disputed amount before the respondent within a period of two weeks. Writ petition stands disposed of directing the respondent to restore the amount if any collected from the petitioner s bankers pursuant to the garnishee notices issued impugned herein and withdraw the garnishee notices subject to the undertaking to be given by the petitioner that 10 of the disputed demand would be deposited within a period of two weeks from today.


IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.8099 OF 2019 (T IT) BETWEEN: M/S. FIRE LUXUR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.239, EMPYREAN, ANCHE MUSKUR VILLAGE, LAKKUR HOBLI, CHIKKATHIRUPATHI POST, MALUR TALUK-563130. REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. RAHUL JAIN, S/O. SHRI. RAVI CHAND JAIN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH.V.S, ADV.,) AND: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1) (1), ROOM NO.227, 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.,) -2- THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT TO WITHDRAW GARNISHEE NOTICES ISSUED TO PETITIONER'S BANKERS RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 ANNEXURE-J DATED 12.02.2019. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, COURT MADE FOLLOWING: ORDER petitioner has sought for writ of mandamus, directing respondent to withdraw Garnishee notices dated 12.02.2019 issued to petitioner s bankers relating to Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. It is contention of petitioner that pursuant to assessment order passed under S.143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act for short) relating to assessment year in question, demand notice was issued by respondent. sum of Rs.81,66,632/- being ten percent of disputed demand was paid by assessee on 25.01.2019. It is further contended that First Appeal has been filed by petitioner challenging assessment order and stay application filed by -3- petitioner has been disposed of by respondent on 06.02.2019. Being aggrieved, petitioner has filed petition before First Appellate Authority and during pendency of stay application before First Appellate Authority, garnishee notices were issued by respondent. Subsequent to filing of writ petition, department has recovered amount of Rs.1,48,72,743/- from bankers of petitioner on 20.02.2019 by way of Demand Draft and same is not encashed so far. Accordingly, learned counsel for petitioner seeks for direction to respondent to restore back said amount to account of petitioner and permit petitioner to agitate matter before Appellate Authority where stay application is pending for consideration, directing First Appellate Authority to dispose of same within time frame. 3. Learned counsel for revenue would submit that in terms of Office Memorandum (F.NO.404/72/93- ITCC) dated 29.02.2016, in case if assessee is -4- aggrieved by order of stay, he / it has to move before administrative Pr. CIT/CIT for review of decision of Assessing Officer. assessee has preferred appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which is not maintainable. Hence, petitioner having deposited ten per cent of demand, if balance ten percent is paid which is order required to be passed by Competent Officer in terms of Notification dated 29.02.2016, same shall be considered by respondent. 4. Having heard rival submissions of learned counsel appearing for parties, this Court finds that there is considerable force in arguments advanced by learned counsel for revenue. That Assessing Officer was empowered to grant interim order of stay provided 20% of disputed demand is paid by assessee. However, it is not in dispute that 10% of disputed demand is already paid by assessee. In such circumstances, justice will be met if direction is issued to -5- petitioner to deposit 10% of balance disputed amount before respondent within period of two weeks. Writ petition stands disposed of directing respondent to restore amount if any collected from petitioner s bankers pursuant to garnishee notices issued impugned herein and withdraw garnishee notices subject to undertaking to be given by petitioner that 10% of disputed demand would be deposited within period of two weeks from today. Sd/- JUDGE sac* Fire Luxur Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru
Report Error