IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.11516 – 11517 OF 2019 (T-IT) BETWEEN:
M/S BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER SRI. RAKESH SINGH SON OF BHART PRASAD SINGH AGE 55 YEARS, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARAPARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020.
[BY SRI. ANNAMALAI. S ADVOCATE] AND:
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) ROOM NO. 606, 6TH FLOOR UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE P. KALINGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027.
[BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE] ... PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE STAY PETITION VIDE ORDER DATED 11.1.2019 REFERRED AS ANNEXURE-A.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Learned Counsel Sri K.V.Aravind accepts notice for the respondent.
2. The petitioner is a statutory body and is an instrumentality of the Government of Karnataka. The assessments were concluded by the Assessing Officer fixing the tax liability and interest relating to the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that for the assessment year relating to 2012-13, the stay application filed by the assessee before the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] has been allowed. However, the stay applications relating to the assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15 came to be dismissed.
3. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has paid the entire tax amount relating to the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 and the balance amount payable is relating to the interest part. Thus, the petitioner seeks stay of the operation of the order passed by the ITAT in Stay Petition Nos.6 &7/Bang/2019 in ITA No.1970 & 1971/Bang/2018 vide order dated 11.1.2019 and to stay the recovery of demand of disputed tax payable for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 and to direct the respondent not to take any coercive steps for the recovery of the balance amount due towards the tax and interest for the said assessment years.
4. The learned counsel for the Revenue would submit that the petition may be considered on the submissions made in the writ petition subject to verification by the department in as much as the payment of tax amount paid by the petitioner on the demand raised.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties as aforesaid. It is apparent from the material placed on record that the petitioner appears to have paid the tax amount demanded for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-
15. The amount sought to be stayed appears to be towards interest under section 234B and 220(2) of the Act. In such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have considered the stay applications filed by the petitioner more particularly, when the stay application relating to the assessment year 2012-13 has been considered and allowed. Taking into consideration these aspects, this court is of the considered opinion that the interest of justice would be met in allowing this writ petition, setting aside the order of the Tribunal impugned herein and staying the recovery of the balance amount for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 subject to verification by the department in as much as payment of tax is concerned. If any short fall is found in the payment of tax relating to the demand made by the revenue, the revenue is at liberty to put the petitioner on notice and demand the tax amount.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE nv