Sri Puttaswamy S P vs Assistant Cit, Circle-3 (1) (1)
2022 Latest Caselaw 3139 Kant

                                1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                            BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

          WRIT PETITION No. 2192/2022 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

Sri. Puttaswamy S.P.,
S/o Late Puttegowda,
Aged about 77 years,
Setthali Village,
Ramnagara District-562160.
                                                    ... Petitioner
(By Sri Kiran Kumar K., Advocate)

AND:

1.     Assistant CIT, Circle-3(1) (1),
       (formerly 3(2)(1)) Bengaluru,
       BMTC Building, 80 Feet Road, 6th Block
       Koramangala,
       Bengaluru-560 095.

2.     Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals),
       National Faceless Appeal Centre,
       Delhi, C/o. Aaykar Seva Kendra, BMTC Building,
       80 Feet Road, 6th Block, Koramangala,
       Bengaluru-560095.

3.     Deputy CIT, Circle 3 (1)(1)
       Bengaluru, BMTC Building, 80 Feet Road,
       6th Block, Koramangala,
       Bengaluru-560 095.
                                 2

4.    Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax
      Bengaluru-3, BMTC Building, 80 Feet Road,
      6th Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560 095.
                                                   ... Respondents

 (By Sri E.I.Sanmathi, AGA)

      This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to directing the R2 to dispose the
appeal filed by the petitioner bearing acknowledgment
No.290158731100120 within the time frame of two months time
period from the date of such direction issued by this Hon'ble High
Court (The Form No.35 and the written submission are herewith
furnished as the Annexure-B1 and Annexure-B2 respectively)
and etc.

     This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court,
made the following:

                              ORDER

The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of

mandamus to direct respondent No.2 to dispose off the

appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of two months.

The petitioner has also sought for appropriate direction to

the respondents not to initiate any coercive action till

disposal of the appeal and has sought for necessary

direction to respondent No.1 to withdraw the attachment of

the petitioner's bank accounts as detailed in paragraph No.3

of the prayer column.

2. The petitioner submits that the Assessment

Order was passed by respondent No.1 on 11.12.2019 and

that the appeal was filed before the respondent No.2 on

10.01.2020. The petitioner submits that stay application

has been filed before respondent No.2- the Appellate

Authority. The petitioner further submits that on

08.10.2020, he has filed an application before respondent

No.4 and that no order has been passed. In the

interregnum, it is pointed out that there has been

attachment of petitioner's bank accounts. The petitioner

submits that he had declared his income for the Assessment

Year 2017-18 as specified in ITR-3 as Rs.2,52,470/- and

agriculture income of Rs.1,20,000/-. It is submitted that

upon scrutiny assessment, the Authority has determined his

income as Rs.42,43,31,870/-. The petitioner submits that

the said determination would prima-facie indicate to be high

pitched and would cause undue hardship. It is submitted

that no order has been passed for application of stay and he

has not approached PCIT as is evident from Annexure- D3.

No action has been taken since 22.09.2020. It is further

submitted that the attachment has been resorted to on

21.05.2020 as is evident from the correspondence by his

bankers and all of which was without passing any orders on

his application for stay.

3. This Court in the case of Flipkart India Private

Limited Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income

Tax and Others passed in W.P.No.1339-1342/2017 has

considered in detail the procedure to be followed wherein,

the Assessing Officer grants stay of demand stipulating

deposit and the assessee would be at liberty to approach

the jurisdictional administrative PCTI/CIT for review of the

decision of the Assessing Officer. It is further pointed out

that applicable circular, the PCIT has power to relax the

condition of deposit in the event of the assessment being

high pitched or in case of undue hardship.

4. Taking note of the plea of the petitioner that

the assessment is high pitched which prima-facie appears

to be a point for consideration, the writ petition is

disposed off directing the Authorities concerned to pass

necessary order on the application for stay taking note of

the procedure delineated in Flipkart case. The

consideration of stay both by the Assessing Officer and the

PCIT to be completed within a period of two weeks. In the

interregnum, no further precipitative steps to be taken by

the Authorities. Upon such consideration by the

Authorities, the petitioner is at liberty to seek for

appropriate remedy. Needless to state that the Authority

to bear in mind the observations of the judgment in the

case of Flipkart both in letter and spirit.

In the event application for stay is rejected,

considering the undue hardship that is made out, the appeal

may be considered out of turn and also in light of the

petitioner being a senior citizen.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PN/VS