Priya Soparkar 1902 wpl 845-20-o IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.845 OF 2020 Humuza Consultants Petitioner V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -23(1), Mumbai and ors. Respondents Mr. Nishant Thakkar with Mr. Hiten Chande i/by M/s PDS Legal, Advocate for Petitioner. None for Respondents. CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : MARCH 17, 2020 P.C.:- 1. Heard Mr. Thakkar, learned counsel for petitioner. None appears for respondents, though it is submitted by Mr. Thakkar that petitioner had served respondents, where after affidavit of service has been filed. 2. By filing this petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India, petitioner seeks direction to respondents not to take any coercive steps for recovery of demand in terms of notice of demand dated 29th December, 2019 and for direction to respondent No.1 to release three bank accounts of petitioner, one with Bank of India bearing No.012220110000449 and other Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 Downloaded on - 21/03/2020 09:17:03 Priya Soparkar 2 902 wpl 845-20-o two with ICICI Bank bearing Nos.039305008509 and 039313011525. 3. After hearing Mr. Thakkar and on going through materials on record, we find that petitioner is partnership firm assessed to income tax jurisdiction under respondent No.1. Petitioner derives income from interest earned from fixed deposits, dividend on shares and profit on sale of shares. For assessment year under consideration i.e. 2017-18, petitioner filed e-return of income on 28th July, 2017 declaring total income of Rs.68,33,07,135.00 and exempt income of Rs.39,75,96,305.00. return was processed under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and by assessment order dated 29 th December, 2019, respondent No.1 as Assessing Officer added back amount of Rs.3,93,39,28,268.00 to income of petitioner under Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly "the Act" hereinafter) as unexplained credit. Thus, assessed income was quantified at Rs.4,61,72,35,403.00. 4. Respondent No.1 on same day i.e.on 29 th December, 2019 issued notice of demand to petitioner under Section 156 of Act calling upon it to pay sum of Rs.3,68,82,72,123.00. 5. According to petitioner, it has filed application for stay of demand before respondent No.1 on 3 rd March, 2020 raising various grounds therein as to why demand should be stayed. Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 Downloaded on - 21/03/2020 09:17:03 Priya Soparkar 3 902 wpl 845-20-o 6.It is further stated that aggrieved by order of assessment, petitioner has preferred appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai ("CIT (Appeals)" for short hereinafter) i.e. respondent No.4 on 6th March,2020 bearing acknowledgment No. 318086151060320. 7. Grievance of petitioner is that without taking any decision on stay application of petitioner, respondent No.1 has attached above three bank accounts of petitioner by issuing garnishee notices under Section 226(3) of Act. Not only that, respondent No.1 has withdrawn amount of Rs.1,29,42,486.00 from above three bank accounts to prejudice of petitioner. 8. Faced with such situation, present writ petition has been filed. 9. After hearing learned counsel for petitioner and on going through materials on record, we feel that it would meet ends of justice if respondent No.1 takes decision on stay application of petitioner in accordance with law within period of 10 days from date of receipt of authenticated copy of this order. 10.Ordered accordingly. 11.Till stay application is decided,there shall be no further withdrawal of money from above three bank Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 Downloaded on - 21/03/2020 09:17:03 Priya Soparkar 4 902 wpl 845-20-o accounts of petitioner and whatever withdrawals have been made, same shall be subject to such order that may be passed by respondent No.1 in terms of present order. Attachment of bank accounts would also be subject to outcome of such order that may be passed by respondent No.1. 12. Petitioner would also be at liberty to move respondent No.4 for early hearing of appeal as well as for stay of outstanding demand and if such prayer is made, same shall be considered in accordance with law by respondent No. 4. 13. However, if any decision is taken adverse to petitioner by respondent No.1, same shall not be given effect to for period of two weeks thereafter. 14.Before parting with record, it is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merit. 15.Writ petition is disposed of. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN, J.) . Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 Downloaded on - 21/03/2020 09:17:03 Humuza Consultants v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-23(1), Mumbai And Or