Allowed

Aditya Birla Private Equity Sunrise Fund v. the Income Tax Officer WARD20(1) and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC14 Feb 2020WP/487/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an order granting conditional stay on tax demand, but noted an appeal was already filed before the CIT(A). The High Court directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal within eight weeks and stayed recovery pending that decision, disposing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide appeal within eight weeks; stay on recovery of demand pending appellate decision.

Aditya Birla Private Equity Sunrise Fund Vs the Income Tax Officer… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

7wpl416-20.doc

¶2

spb/

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION (L.)NO. 416 OF 2020

¶5

Aditya Birla Private Equity Sunrise Fund … Petitioner.

¶6

V/s.

¶7

The Income Tax OfÏcer, Ward 20(1)(1), Mumbai & Ors.

¶8

... Respondents.

¶9

¶10

Ms. Priyanka Jain, Advocate a/w. Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the Petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Sham Walve, Advocate a/w. Mr. Pritish Chatterjee for the Respondents.

¶12

¶13

CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN AND MILIND N. JADHAV,JJ.

¶14

DATE : FEBRUARY 14, 2020.

¶15

PC :

¶16

1 Heard Ms. Priyanka Jain, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Sham Walve, learned standing counsel Revenue for the Respondents.

¶17

Digitally signed by Shalikram Shalikram P. Borey Date: P. Borey 2020.03.02 11:48:59 +0530

¶18

2 By filing this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 30.01.2020 passed by the Income Tax OfÏcer, Ward 20(1)(1), Mumbai, granting conditional stay to the demand raised.

1/3

Borey

7wpl416-20.doc

spb/

3 Shorn of details essential facts may be briefly noted. For the assessment year 2017-18, Income Tax OfÏcer, Ward 20(1)(1), Mumbai / Assessment OfÏcer assessed the Petitioner by his order under section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly, “the Act” hereinafter) on 27.12.2019, whereby the income of the Petitioner was determined at Rs. 65,44,20,000.00 resulting in a demand of Rs. 30,94,09,230.00. Petitioner filed application on 15.01.2020 for stay of the demand raised. By the order dated 30.01.2020 passed under section 220(3) of the Act, the Assessing OfÏcer directed the Petitioner to pay 20% of the demand by way of five instalments as mentioned in the impugned order pursuant to which recovery of the balance demand would be stayed till 30.09.2020 or to be reconsidered thereafter.

¶24

4 On a query by the court, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that against the aforesaid order of assessment dated 27.12.2019, Petitioner has preferred appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)32, Mumbai on 15.01.2020.

¶25

5 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, we are of the view that it

2/3

Borey

spb/

7wpl416-20.doc

would be in the interest of justice if the first appellate authority i.e. the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decides the appeal of the Petitioner expeditiously and till such time to keep in abeyance the demand raised in terms of the assessment order dated 27.12.2019.

¶31

6 Accordingly, we direct that the appeal filed by the Petitioner be taken on board by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and to decide the same within a period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt of an authenticated copy of this order and during the interregnum there shall be stay of the recovery of the demand pursuant to the assessment order dated 27.12.2019.

¶32

7 Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶33

(MILIND N. JADHAV, J.)

¶34

(UJJAL BHUYAN, J.)

¶35

3/3

¶36

Borey

Aditya Birla Private Equity Sunrise Fund v. the Income Tax Officer WARD20(1) and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya Birla Private Equity Sunrise Fund v. the Income Tax Officer WARD20(1) and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinay D.Valia Vs a.S.Thakur and Ors.

Desiree M.Thakur and Anr. Vs the Appropreiate Authority and Anr.

The Commissioner of of Income-Tax VIII Vs M/S Jecobs H and G Pvt.Ltd.

M/S. Om Developers Vs DCIT-28 (2) , Mumbai and Anr.

Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX8- Mumbai Vs Shree Sai Steel Industries India Pvt. Ltd.

Aditya Birla Private Equity Trust Vs the Income-Tax Officer, Ward 20 (1) (1) Mumbai and 4 Ors.