Visvesvaraya Technolocigal ... vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, on 19 March, 2012

[Cites 2, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

Visvesvaraya Technolocigal ... vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, on 19 March, 2012

Bench: B.S.Patil

                                   1




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

          DATED THIS THE        19TH   DAY OF MARCH 2012

                                BEFORE

             THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL

               W.P.No. 61810-61815/2012 (T-IT)
BETWEEN:

Visvesvaraya Technological University,
'Jnana Sangam' Campus,
Belgaum-590 018 represented by its
Registrar Dr. S.A. Kori,
Aged about 53 years,
Sb late A.A. Kori.
                                                   -     Petitioner
(By Sri S. Parthasarathi, Advocate)

AND:

1.     The Asst. Commissioner of
       Income Tax, Circle-i, Belgaum.

2.     The Commissioner of Income Tax,
       Beigaum.

3.     The Commissioner of
       Income Tax (Apppeals),
       Belgaum.
                                               -       Respondents
(by Sri Y.V. Raviraj, Advocate)

     This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the order passed by the
respondent no. 1 and 2 dated 31.01.2012 and 24.02.2012, etc.

      This writ petition is coming on for orders, this day the
Court made the following:
                              ORDER

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has passed an order on 14.03.20 12 holding that the order passed by the Assessing Officer allowing 50% of the demand to be kept in abeyance till the decision of the first appeal or till 30.09.2012 whichever was earlier, subject to payment of balance 50% of the demand by 22.02.20 12 was just and reasonable and no interference was called for. After arguing the matter for sometime Counsel submits that the petitioner intends to file an appeal against this order before the competent appellate authority. He therefore submits that, to facilitate the petitioner to prefer an appeal against this order and to obtain necessary interim orders 30 days time may be granted and until then the respondent-Revenue may be directed not to precipitate the matter.

2. I find this request made by the petitioner a reasonable one and it deserves favourable consideration. I have gone through the pleadings and the nature of the 3 grievance made by the petitioner, the request made by the petitioner-University is therefore allowed. 30 days time is granted to file an appeal as desired by the petitioner and until 30 days from today the respondents are directed not to precipitate the matter by insisting upon the demand. This order is necessitated having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

With the above observations the Writ Petition is disposed of.

Sd/ JUDGE BVV

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court