Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 52(2), Kolkata and ors.R

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Mar 11, 2014

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1132821

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1132821
Court: Kolkata High Court
Judge: Harish Tandon
Decided On: Mar 11, 2014
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Respondent

income Tax Officer, Ward 52(2), Kolkata and ors.R

Excerpt

.....to recover 30% of the total demand which is permissible under the act and the allegation of the petitioner that the entire demand is sought to be recovered, is not correct. this court does not find any illegality in the action of the department in issuing a notice under section 226 of the said act in absence of any order of stay passed by the appellate authority. since the recovery is sought for 30% of the total demand, this court does not intend to interfere with such cours.of action taking into consideration the interest of the revenue. this court, however, feels that the appellate authority by this time should have disposed of the appeal itself. the appellate authority is thus directed to make all efforts to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible without granting any adjournment to either of the parties and preferably within three weeks from the date of communication of this order. this order shall not construe to have made on the merits of the said appeal and the said authority shall be free to decide the same without being influenced by any of the observations made herein. since the matter is disposed of at the motion stage without calling for affidavits, the allegations contained in the writ petition shall not deemed to have been admitted by the respondents. (harish tandon, j.) k. banerjee a.r.[c.r.].

Full Judgment

Order Sheet W.P.No.178 of 2014 In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side Bibek Kumar Bandopadhyay Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward -52(2).Kolkata & ORS.Petitioner Respondents BEFORE: The Hon'ble Justice Harish Tandon Date : 11th March, 2014.

For Petitioner : Mr.Debanuj Basu Thakur, Adv.For Respondents : Mr.R.N.Bandyopadhyay with Mr.Aniket Mitra, Adversus For the financial year 2009-10 the authority while making an assessment, made the petitioner liable to pay a sum of Rs.9,98,333/-.

The petitioner assailed the said order before the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals].which is still pending.

According to the petitioner, the authorities could not have raised a demand when the appeal is pending before the Appellate authority.

Admittedly, the petitioner did not take out an application for stay of the demand in the pending appeal.

There is no fetter on the part of the department to take recouRs.for recovery of the demand in absence of any order of stay passed by the Appellate Authority.

It is now brought to the notice of this Court that a notice under Section 226 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued upon the banker of the petitioner contemplating to recover the demand.

The respondents say that they have issued such notice to recover 30% of the total demand which is permissible under the Act and the allegation of the petitioner that the entire demand is sought to be recovered, is not correct.

This Court does not find any illegality in the action of the department in issuing a notice under Section 226 of the said Act in absence of any order of stay passed by the Appellate Authority.

Since the recovery is sought for 30% of the total demand, this Court does not intend to interfere with such couRs.of action taking into consideration the interest of the revenue.

This Court, however, feels that the Appellate Authority by this time should have disposed of the appeal itself.

The Appellate Authority is thus directed to make all efforts to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible without granting any adjournment to either of the parties and preferably within three weeks from the date of communication of this order.

This order shall not construe to have made on the merits of the said appeal and the said authority shall be free to decide the same without being influenced by any of the observations made herein.

Since the matter is disposed of at the motion stage without calling for affidavits, the allegations contained in the writ petition shall not deemed to have been admitted by the respondents.

(HARISH TANDON, J.) K.

Banerjee A.R.[C.R.].

Same Court & Year Kolkata · 2014 Same Parties vs income Tax Officer, Ward 52(2), Kolkata and ors.R Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Harish Tandon