Mahalaxmi Infracontract Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax - 2020-LL-0821-16

Citation	2020-LL-0821-16
Appellant Name	Mahalaxmi Infracontract Limited
Respondent Name	Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court	HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	21/08/2020
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	non-speaking order
Bot Summary:	We have heard Mr. Bandish Soparkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Mauna Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Department. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 23-1-2020 passed by the Assessing Authority requiring the petitioner to deposit 20 of the demand while disposing of his application filed under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as the order dated 18-3-2020 passed by the Principal Commissioner confirming the order passed by the Assessing Authority. It is not an issue that it is admitted by the parties that the Guidelines as laid down by Instruction No.1914 dated 2- 2-1993 although modified from time time but certain provisions of Clause of the Guidelines for Staying Demand have not been altered so far. Relevant Clause(v) of the Guidelines for Staying Demand reads as follows:- While considering an application under section 220(6), the Assessing Officer should consider all relevant factors having a bearing on the demand raised and communicate his decision in the form of a speaking order. In the present case, upon a perusal of both the orders dated 23-1-2020 and 18-3-2020, we find that they are non- speaking. According to Mr. Soparkar, a detailed application was given under section 220(6) of the Act elaborating all the reasons on the basis of which a complete stay order was being sought but the authorities without dealing with any of the grounds has passed a completely non-speaking order in violation of the Instructions and the Guidelines issued by the Department. In that view of the matter, we allow this petition setting aside both the orders and directing the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law taking into consideration the observations made above and the applicable Guidelines within a period of 15 days Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 26 18:27:18 IST 2020 C/SCA/8220/2020 ORDER from the date of communication of this order by email by any of the parties, the petitioner or the Department, as the case may be.

C/SCA/8220/2020 ORDER IN HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8220 of 2020 MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT LIMITED Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appearance: MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for Petitioner(s) No. 1 MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for Respondent(s) No. 1,2 CORAM:HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 21/08/2020 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATH) 1. We have heard Mr. Bandish Soparkar, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Mauna Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for respondent Department. 2. By means of this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 23-1-2020 passed by Assessing Authority (respondent no.1) requiring petitioner to deposit 20% of demand while disposing of his application filed under Section 220(6) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short referred to as Act ) as well as order dated 18-3-2020 passed by Principal Commissioner (respondent No.2) confirming order passed by Assessing Authority. Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 26 18:27:18 IST 2020 C/SCA/8220/2020 ORDER 3. It is not issue that it is admitted by parties that Guidelines as laid down by Instruction No.1914 dated 2- 2-1993 although modified from time time but certain provisions of Clause (C) of Guidelines for Staying Demand have not been altered so far. Relevant Clause (C)(v) of Guidelines for Staying Demand reads as follows:- (v) While considering application under section 220(6), Assessing Officer should consider all relevant factors having bearing on demand raised and communicate his decision in form of speaking order. 4. In present case, upon perusal of both orders dated 23-1-2020 and 18-3-2020, we find that they are non- speaking. According to Mr. Soparkar, detailed application was given under section 220(6) of Act elaborating all reasons on basis of which complete stay order was being sought but authorities without dealing with any of grounds has passed completely non-speaking order in violation of Instructions and Guidelines issued by Department. 5. In that view of matter, we allow this petition setting aside both orders and directing Assessing Authority (respondent No.1) to pass fresh order in accordance with law taking into consideration observations made above and applicable Guidelines within period of 15 days Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 26 18:27:18 IST 2020 C/SCA/8220/2020 ORDER from date of communication of this order by email by any of parties, petitioner or Department, as case may be. (VIKRAM NATH, CJ) (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) DRASHTI K. SHUKLA Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 26 18:27:18 IST 2020 Mahalaxmi Infracontract Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

Metadata

Judgment