1 IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 BEFORE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.5634/2020 (T-IT) Between: Mehta Gold Private Limited, Represented by Director, # 969, Mehta Tower, Sharekhan Lane, Near Dharmaraya Swami Temple, Nagrathpet,Bengaluru 560 002. Petitioner (By Sri Shreehari Kutsa, Advocate) And: 1. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, 7th Floor, BMTC Building, 80 feet Road, 6th Block, Near KHB Games Village, Koramangala, Bengaluru 560 095. 2. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(2),4th Floor, BMTC Building, 80 feet Road,6th Block, Near KHB Games Village, Koramangala, Bengaluru 560 095. Respondents (By Sri Jeevan J. Neeralgi, Advocate) 2 This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India, praying to direct R-2 to not enforce notice of demand under Section 156 dated 30.12.2019 for Assessment Year 2017-2018 bearing DIN and notice until disposal of appeal filed before R-1 computer print out of notice of demand under Section 156 dated 30.12.2019 for Assessment Year 2017-2018 bearing DIN and notice is enclosed to this petition in Annexure-A and quash communication rejection request for stay issued by R-2 dated 04.02.2020 in letter for Assessment year 2017-2018 and enclosed to this petition in Annexure-C and etc. This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, Court made following: ORDER petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 not to enforce notice of demand until disposal of appeal by respondent No.1. petitioner has also sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash communication rejecting request for stay by respondent No.2 by its order dated 04.02.2020 at Annexure-C. petitioner has also sought for direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of appeal 3 that has been filed against assessment order expeditiously within time-frame to be fixed. 2. petitioner submits that he has good case on merits and in light of equity of facts in its favour and various legal contentions, has sought for stay of assessment order, which however, has been rejected as per order at Annexure-C wherein no reasons are forthcoming, except observation that stay would be conditional on payment of 20% of disputed demand. petitioner contends that there has been no meaningful consideration of his application for stay. 3. It is further contended that application for stay ought to be disposed off in light of Circular bearing No.1914, further amended on 25.01.2017, 29.02.2016 and 31.07.2017 and also keeping in mind observations made by High Court of Judicature at Madras in case of M/s. Shriram Finance v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (1) and 4 Others (W.P.No.5425/2019 & W.P.Nos.6166 & 6168/2019 decided on 01.03.2019) as well as order of this Court in case of Flipkart India Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (W.P.Nos.1339-1342/2017 decided on 23.02.2017). 4. Learned counsel appearing for Revenue submits that petition is premature and no doubt, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) has not passed any order on representation of petitioner 05.02.2020 which was filed subsequent to filing of writ petition, but same would be considered in accordance with law and in accordance with existing circulars as applicable. 5. In light of appeal having been filed, question of intervening as regards to assessment order at this stage is not appropriate. However, as regards contention that consideration of 5 application for stay and further exercise of power of PCIT keeping in mind circular bearing No.1914 as amended on 21.5.2017, 29.2.2016 and 31.7.2017, request of petitioner is to be considered in meaningful manner. In fact, power of granting stay has been considered by High Court of Judicature at Madras in case of M/s. Shriram Finance (supra) wherein, certain guidelines have been referred to in para-5 which may be taken note of. So also manner of exercise of power of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is detailed in Flipkart s case (supra) at paras 18 and 19, which needs to be kept in mind. This Court refrains from expressing any opinion on merits of contentions raised, but reiterates that PCIT is to exercise power conferred upon him as per circulars in meaningful manner. This Court in order dated 23.02.2017 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 1339-1342/2017 at para-16 has further observed that PCIT is also to examine as to whether grounds as 6 made out by assessee that assessment is unreasonably high pitched or requirement of deposit would lead to genuine hardship being caused to assessee. said aspect needs to be kept in mind when considering request of petitioner for review of order of stay as ordered herein. 6. It is submitted by petitioner that in terms of procedure prescribed under circular, petitioner has filed application before PCIT seeking review of order rejecting application for stay. 7. petitioner to be present before Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and request of petitioner as contained in representation dated 05.02.2020 would be disposed of in light of observations made above. 8. PCIT to dispose of representation of petitioner within period not later than one week 7 from date of appearance of petitioner as noticed above. All contentions of parties are kept open. This petition is accordingly disposed off. Sd/- JUDGE VGR Mehta Gold Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-4, Bengaluru / Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru