Dismissed

Ramakrishna Electronics, v. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Aug 2020WP/6806/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging addition of income under Income Tax Act dismissed as alternative remedy initiated by appeal pending before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

What did the court decide?

Writ petition rejected; petitioner directed to pay 20% of disputed demand in three equal monthly instalments starting September 2020.

Ramakrishna Electronics, Vs Pr… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.6806 OF 2020

¶3

ORDER:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)

¶4

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶5

“to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the order No.ITBA/AST/S/144/2019-20/1023098690(1) dated 26^th December 2019 in so far as the third respondent has added a sum of Rs.1,56,66,050/- u/s.69A & 69B of Income Tax Act, 1961 as illegal, arbitrary, onerous and irrational and against the Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to revoke/ set aside the Garnish order of the Impugned proceedings No. ITBA/AST/S/144/201920/1023098690(1) dated 26^th December 2019 in so far as the third respondent has added a sum of Rs.1,56,66,050/- u/s.69A & 69B of Income Tax Act, 1961 in the interest of Justice”.

¶6

At the time when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that against the order impugned herein, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the month of January, 2020.

¶7

Though the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending consideration, jurisdiction of this Court came to be invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, we feel that when an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner and when he has invoked the same by preferring an appeal, question of entertaining this writ petition by this Court does not arise. It may be true that the authority has not followed the procedure or adopted incorrect method in computation but that by itself cannot be a ground to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court when the

¶8

¶9

appeal filed by the petitioner is pending consideration before the appropriate authority.

¶10

In fact, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department brought to the notice of this Court that there is stay of collection of the disputed demand subject to payment of 20% of the disputed demand, which would be around Rs.33,40,401/-.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that having regard to the prevailing conditions in the country (Covid-19), it is very difficult for the petitioner to pay the amount at once and hence, seeks payment of the said amount in instalments.

¶12

Having regard to the above, the present Writ Petition is rejected. However, 20% of the disputed demand i.e., Rs.33,40,401/- shall be paid by the petitioner in three (3) equal monthly instalments starting from September, 2020 onwards. It is needless to mention that the first instalment shall be paid before 10.09.2020, and the second and third instalments shall be paid before 10.10.2020 and 10.11.2020 respectively. In default, the relief granted shall stand vacated. The observations, if any, made in this order on merits, shall not influence the appellate authority to pass orders in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶14

_______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶15

_____________________________ JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN

Date : 19.8.2020 AMD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.6806 OF 2020

¶21

Date : 19.8.2020

¶22

AMD

Ramakrishna Electronics, v. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakrishna Electronics, v. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S v Modern Boiled and Raw Rice Mill Vs Deputy Commissioner

C Adiseshaiah, Anantapuram Dist Vs G Nagamani, Anantapuram Dist

D.Gattaiah at Satish, Kadapa Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

M/s Munisekkhareddy Soora Vs Assistant Commissioner

State Bank of India, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S L N S Enterprises Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)