Allowed

Manju Avinash Wardekar v. the Income Tax Officer Ward -3(1)

Bombay HC4 Mar 2016NMA/341/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a notice of motion seeking stay of an ITAT order and restraint of coercive recovery proceedings. The court expedited the appeal hearing and restrained the revenue authorities from adopting coercive action while final hearing is pending.

What did the court decide?

Stay of impugned ITAT order; restraint on respondent from adopting coercive proceedings; appeal fixed for hearing.

Manju Avinash Wardekar Vs the Income Tax Officer Ward -3(1) — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2016)

YBG

nma341-16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.341 OF 2016 IN

¶6

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2585 OF 2011

¶7

WITH

¶8

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.344 OF 2016 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6795 OF 2010

¶9

WITH

¶10

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.345 OF 2016 IN

¶11

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2 OF 2012

¶12

Manju Avinash Wardekar, Pune

¶13

.. Applicant

¶14

In the matter between:

¶15

Manju Avinash Wardekar, Pune .. Appellant - Versus - Income Tax Officer, Ward No.11(4) Pune .. Respondent

¶16

Mr. Mihir C. Naniwadekar for applicant/ appellant in all

¶17

CORAM : M.S.SANKLECHA, & B.P.COLABAWALLA, JJ DATE : 4^th March 2016.

¶18

P.C.

¶19

Heard Mr. Naniwadekar, learned Counsel for the

YBG

nma341-16

appellant/applicant. None present for the respondent – revenue inspite of service. Further, on instructions he states that even today's date was communicated to the Assessing Officer orally. Earlier written notices of this motion were given to the respondent – revenue in last week of January 2016 and in the month of February 2016. Mr. Naniwadekar learned Counsel for applicant, undertakes to file affidavit of service, within a week from today.

¶24

2] This notice of motion is taken out by the appellant/ applicant seeking stay of the impugned order dated 27^th July 2011, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. In the alternative, an order restraining the respondent – revenue from adopting any coercive proceedings for recovery of tax due, consequent to the impunged order of the Tribunal and also seeking early hearing of the appeal, is prayed for.

¶25

3] Mr.Naniwadekar, learned Counsel for the appellant/ applicant states that the appellant/ applicant is a senior citizen aged 76 years and the respondent revenue has been insisting upon payment being made in installments, as communicated to the appellant by letter dated 23^rd November 2015. He further submits that today morning also the Assessing Officer telephonically informed the applicant to comply with his request to make payment of the tax due in accordance with the letter

YBG

nma341-16

dated 23^rd November 2015. Mr. Naniwadekar, further states the dispute is within a very narrow compass. Out of the demand of Rs.1.05 Crores, the applicant has already deposited with the Revenue an amount of Rs.47 lakhs.

¶30

4] In view of the fact that the applicant is 76 years old, we expedite

¶31

the hearing and fix the appeal for final hearing in the week commencing from 4^th April 2016. In the meantime, respondents will not adopt any coercive proceedings in pursuance of the letter dated 23^rd November 2015.

¶32

5] Notice of motion is allowed in the above terms.

¶33

(B.P.COLABAWALLA, J)

¶34

(M.S.SANKLECHA, J)

Manju Avinash Wardekar v. the Income Tax Officer Ward -3(1)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju Avinash Wardekar v. the Income Tax Officer Ward -3(1)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devang Lalji Shah Vs the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and Anr.

The Commissioner of Income TAX-6, Mumbai Vs M/S. Heritage Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai

The Commissioner of INCOME-TAX-9,MUM Vs M/S Bezel Pharma Pvt. Ltd.

The Ci.T.B.C-I. Vs M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd.

Cancer Patients Aid Society Vs the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) and 2 Ors.

The Commissioner of Income TAX-5 Vs M/S. Mahameru Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd.