Allowed

Sri. Gulam Mukthiyar v. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Karnataka HC16 Dec 2022WP/25364/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition to quash notices demanding a 20% pre-deposit for filing an income tax appeal and a communication freezing the petitioner's bank account. The Court held that neither the Act nor the relevant Circular mandates such pre-deposit during appeal pendency.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned letter demanding 20% pre-deposit and the communication freezing the bank account; ordered the bank to defreeze petitioner's accounts.

Sri. Gulam Mukthiyar Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.25364 OF 2022 (T-IT)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. GULAM MUKTHIYAR S/O LATE. GULAM RASOOL AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS DOING BUSINESS AT NO. 6, GM PEARL 1^ST STAGE, 1^ST PHASE, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 068.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. M.N. SHESHADRI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. CHANDPASHA., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

1 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (2),

¶12

CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD,

¶13

BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶15

3 . THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA,

¶16

BANGALORE-560 095.

¶17

4 . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA,

¶18

BANGALORE-560 095.

¶19

²

¶20

5 . THE BRANCH MANAGER BANK OF BARODA, BMT LAYOUT BRANCH, BANGALORE-560 068.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND AND

¶23

SRI. M. DILIP., ADVOCATES FOR R-1 TO R-5, NOTICE TO R5 IS D/W VIDE COURT ORDER DT.16.12.2022)

¶24

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED LETTER DTD 07.10.2022 BEARING NO.ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1046205195(1) ISSUED BY THE R1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, PRODUCED ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶25

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶26

ORDER

¶27

In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following

¶28

reliefs:-

¶29

“ a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order to quash the impugned letter dated: 07.10.2022 bearing No. No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1056205195 (1) issued by the Respondent No.1 the Assistant Commissioner, produced Annexure-A.

¶30

b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction to quash the impugned letter dated: 09.12.2022 bearing No. F.NO. 226(3) / AEYPM3488E/2022-23 issued by the Respondent No.2 Bank of Baroda, BTM Layout Branch, Bengaluru i.e., petitioner’s Bank Vide Annexure-B.

¶31

³

¶32

c) Issued a Writ in the nature Mandamus or any other Writ or Direction, directing the respondent to defreeze the Bank account of the petitioner maintained at Respondent No.4 Bank and consequently permit its operations.

¶33

d) To grant such other further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case on hand in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶34

Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶35

The material on record discloses that aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer, the petitioner has preferred the appeal which is pending before the 4^th respondent – Appellate authority. During the pendency of the appeals, the 1^st respondent – Assessing Officer has issued the impugned notice calling upon the petitioner to pay 20% of the total amount demanded in the order, which was under challenge before the appellate authority on the ground that the same is required to be deposited / paid by

¶36

the petitioner before filing the appeal in terms of the CBDT Circular No. 1914 dated 31.07.2017. Since the petitioner

¶37

⁴

¶38

did not comply with the demand made in the said notice, the 2^nd respondent has issued impugned communication at Annexure-B dated 09.12.2022 to the 5^th respondent – Bank calling upon the Bank to pay the amounts due from the petitioner. Aggrieved by the impugned letter at Annexure-A dated 07.10.2022 and the impugned communication at Annexure-B dated 09.12.2022, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶39

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents – revenue fairly submits that there is no requirement of the pre-deposit prior to preferring the appeal by the petitioner – assessee against the order passed by the Assessing Officer as wrongly stated in the notice at Annexure-A. His submission is placed on record.

¶40

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents – revenue that there is no requirement of making pre-deposit of 20% or otherwise by the petitioner – assessee, who has preferred the appeal pending before the 4^th respondent – Assessing Authority, coupled with the

¶41

⁵

¶42

language employed under Section 240A of the I.T.Act, which does not mandate pre-deposit of 20% nor the Circular dated 31.07.2017 relied upon in Annexure-A, which also does not contemplate requirement of predeposit for the purpose of filing / maintaining the appeal, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned letter at Annexure-A dated 07.10.2022 deserves to be quashed and consequently, the impugned communication at Annexure-B dated 09.12.2022 also deserves to be quashed and appropriate directions are to be issued to the respondents.

¶43

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶46

(ii) The impugned letter at Annexure-A dated 07.10.2022 passed by the 1^st respondent – Assessing Officer and the impugned communication at Annexure-B dated 09.12.2022 issued by the 2^nd respondent are hereby quashed.

¶47

(iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of respondents 1 to 4 to take recourse to such remedies as available in law.

¶48

⁶

¶49

(iv) Petitioner is at liberty to produce the copy of this order before the 5^th respondent – Bank to enable the Bank to defreeze all the accounts of the petitioner which was frozen pursuant to Annexure-B which stands quashed under this order.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

Srl.

Sri. Gulam Mukthiyar v. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Gulam Mukthiyar v. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

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

Smt Geetha Bai Vs Sri Balajisingh

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Udupi District Tappers Co. Operative

Smt Geetha Bai Vs Secretary to the Commercial

Gulam Mustafa Enterprises Private Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Incomet Ax

Gm Infinite Dwelling India Private Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Sri Gulam Mustafa Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax