Priya Soparkar 1 912 wp 3606-19-o IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3606 OF 2019 Vodafone Idea Limited Petitioner V/s. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and ors. Respondents Mr.P.J.Pardiwala, Senior Advocate i/by Mr.A.K.Jasani for Petitioner. Mr.Sham Walve with Mr.Pritesh Chatterjee, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 24, 2020 P.C.:- 1. Heard Mr.P.J.Paridwala, learned senior counsel instructed by Mr.A.K.Jasani, learned counsel for petitioner; and Mr.Sham Walve, learned standing counsel, revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner has sought for following reliefs:- ::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/02/2020 10:52:35 ::: Priya Soparkar 2 912 wp 3606-19-o (a) that this Hon ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of Constitution of India called for records of case so far as they relate to impugned Order dated September 27, 2019 (Exhibit K ) and order dated December 19, 2019 passed by ITAT in MA No.589/M/2019 Exhibit P and after going through same and examining question of legality thereof modify same by revoking conditions of furnishing bank guarantee imposed on Petitioner earlier; (b) that this Hon ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or Writ in nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, ordering and directing Respondent to revoke conditions of furnishing bank guarantee imposed on Petitioner earlier; (c) that this Hon ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of Prohibition or writ in nature of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of Constitution of India prohibiting Respondent from taking any further action whatsoever in pursuance of expiry of bank guarantee. 3. It is seen that for assessment year 2007-08, petitioner has preferred appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench D , Mumbai (Tribunal ) which has been registered as ITA No.1173/CHD/2011. ::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/02/2020 10:52:35 ::: Priya Soparkar 3 912 wp 3606-19-o 4. In said appeal petitioner had filed application for staying demand of Rs.93,03,55,486.00. said application was registered as SA No.23/Chd/2011. It may be mentioned that as per assessment order total income of petitioner was assessed at Rs.7,43,66,88,318.00 and tax demand was Rs.3,45,43,83,033.00. It appears that petitioner had paid amount of Rs.2,17,08,29,467.00 excluding interest amount which amounts to 70% of total tax amount. By order dated 14th December, 2011 Tribunal stayed recovery of balance amount. However, at subsequent stage, Tribunal insisted that petitioner should provide bank guarantee to cover remaining 30% of tax amount. This was in order dated 23 rd November, 2012 passed in SA No.334/M/2012. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that for various reasons banks of petitioner are now insisting on full deposit of aforesaid amount in order to provide bank guarantee. This has created piquant ::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/02/2020 10:52:35 ::: Priya Soparkar 4 912 wp 3606-19-o situation for petitioner as it is going through difficult financial phase at moment. 6. Learned standing counsel Revenue submits that appeal of petitioner is of year 2011 and infact was fixed for hearing on several occasions. As matter of fact it was heard but for one reason or other hearing could not be concluded. 7. After hearing learned counsel for parties and on due consideration, we are of view that it would be in interest of justice if appeal itself is heard by Tribunal expeditiously and till such time recovery of balance tax amount should be stayed. 8. Accordingly, Tribunal is directed to hear and decide Income Tax Appeal No.1173/CHD/2011 for assessment year 2007-08 within period of four months from today. Till hearing of appeal as above, demand in question shall be kept in abeyance without any requirement of furnishing bank account. ::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/02/2020 10:52:35 ::: Priya Soparkar 5 912 wp 3606-19-o 9. Writ petition is disposed of in above terms. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN, J.) . ::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/02/2020 10:52:35 ::: Vodafone Idea Limited v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and or