1 WP No.180/20 dtd. 25.02.20 IN HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.180 OF 2020 PIRNA URBAN CO-OEPRATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., acting through its Authorized Representative Mr. Sujit Kunju Kunju, duly authorized vide Resolution dated 20.02.2020, having its Office at Sankalp , Pirna, Bardez Goa 403513. .... Petitioner Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), Having office at Aayakar Bhawan, 5 EDC Complex, Patto Plaza, Panaji Goa. .... Respondent Mr. Gaurang Panandiker with Ms. Eesha Dukle, Advocates for Petitioner. Ms. Amira Razaq, Standing Counsel for Respondent. Coram:- M.S. SONAK & NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ. Date:- 25th February, 2020 JUDGMENT (Per M.S. Sonak) Heard Mr. Gaurang Panandiker for Petitioner and Ms. Amira Razaq, Standing Counsel for Respondent. 2 WP No.180/20 dtd. 25.02.20 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith at request and with consent of learned counsel for parties. 3. challenge in this petition is to notice dated 12.02.2020 issued by Income Tax Officer (ITO) to petitioner's bank i.e. Ratnakar Bank Ltd., requiring bank to remit amount of `33,42,040/- as dues towards payment of income tax by petitioner. 4. Mr. Panandiker points out that petitioner has already instituted appeal against assessment order which has become basis for demand for aforesaid sum of `33,42,040/-. Besides, he points out that ITO himself, vide communication dated 15.01.2020 addressed to petitioner assessee, has made it clear that recovery of entire amount can be stayed pending disposal of appeal, provided, petitioner, pays 20% of demanded amount, which, in present case, totally comes to `13,37,462/- or thereabouts. Mr. Panandikar points out that petitioner, vide his application dated 22.01.2020 has pointed out to ITO that petitioner, is due to get refund of `23,66,633/- from Income Tax Department and therefore, amount of `13,37,462/- may be adjusted from out of refunds due to petitioner. Mr. Panandiker submits that petitioner's application dated 22.01.2020 is yet to be decided by ITO and in these circumstances there was no 3 WP No.180/20 dtd. 25.02.20 justification for issuance of impugned notice dated 12.02.2020. 5. Ms. Razaq, learned Standing Counsel for respondent submits that since, amount of `33,42,040/- is due and payable by petitioner assessee and further, since, there is no stay granted by any authority, there was no error in issuance of notice dated 12.02.2020. 6. We have considered rival contentions. 7. In terms of communication dated 15.01.2020 addressed by ITO, it is clear that demand can be stayed by ITO provided, assessee, pays 20% of demanded amount pending appeal against assessment order. 20% of demanded amount comes approximately to `13,37,462/-. It is not as if petitioner, has declined to pay this amount. petitioner, by its application dated 22.01.2020 has merely pointed out that tax refunds due to petitioner are to tune of `23,66,633/-. petitioner, has therefore only requested that necessary adjustments be made from out of tax refunds due to petitioner. 8. According to us, ITO, was required to consider petitioner's application dated 22.01.2020 which is in fact, application seeking for stay on recovery of entire demanded 4 WP No.180/20 dtd. 25.02.20 amount before issuing impugned notice dated 12.02.2020. On this short ground, we are inclined to defer execution of impugned notice dated 12.02.2020. This is more so because Mr. Panandiker, learned counsel for petitioner on instructions, makes statement that despite impugned notice dated 12.02.2020 as yet, his bankers, have not remitted this amount to Income Tax Department. 9. Therefore, if petitioner's bankers have till date, not acted on impugned notice dated 12.02.2020, then, they need not act upon same until they receive further orders from ITO. ITO, to hear petitioner assessee and dispose of application dated 22.01.2020 seeking, in effect, stay on recoveries as expeditiously as possible and in any case within period of six weeks from today. Until petitioner's application dated 22.01.2020 is disposed of, ITO to not insist upon compliance with impugned notice dated 12.02.2020. 10. petitioner assessee to appear before ITO on 04.03.2020 at 10.30 a.m. and file authenticated copy of this order. Further, petitioner, to cooperate with ITO in matter of disposal of application or request in application dated 22.01.2020. 5 WP No.180/20 dtd. 25.02.20 11. petitioner is also authorized to communicate authenticated copy of this order to Ratnakar bank Ltd., so that, bank, need not act upon impugned notice dated 12.02.2020 until it receives further orders from ITO in this regard. 12. Rule is disposed of in aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. All concerned to act on basis of authenticated copy of this order. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J. M. S. SONAK, J. ss Pirna Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Panaji