Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devi Shakuntalal Thakral Charitable ... vs The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 20 April, 2011
WP No.6316 of 2011
20.4.2011.
Shri Sumit Nema for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjay Lal for the respondents.
Petitioner sought following relief :
"7.1 To direct the respondent no.3 to decide the stay applications of the petitioner.
7.2 To direct respondent no.3 to hear the appeals of the petitioner for the AY 2007-08 & 2008-09 expeditiously; & 7.3 To issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case to give relief to the petitioner."
Case of the petitioner is that in the earlier assessment years 2004-05 & 2005-06, petitioner was found entitled to exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, but, in further years, the aforesaid exemption was disallowed by the assessing officer.. It is submitted that against the aforesaid orders, petitioner herein has preferred appeals before the respondent No.3 along with which the petitioner has moved application (Annexure-P/8) for stay which is pending for adjudication before the respondent No.3. It is submitted that the respondent No.3 be directed to decide the aforesaid application expeditiously and till then protection be given to the petitioner that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for enforcement of recovery.
Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel appearing for the department opposed the aforesaid contention, who submitted that in this case there is no dispute in respect of exemption to the petitioner, but, the only dispute in respect of allowance of certain expenses for which the petitioner has not been found entitled for deduction. It is submitted that the petitioner may be directed to deposit the amount of tax and the appeals filed by the petitioner shall be heard and decided by the respondent no.3.
WP No.6316 of 2011From the perusal of the aforesaid, we find that there is dispute in respect of exemption and allowance of expenses and as per the statement made by the petitioner, in earlier years said were allowed, but, in subsequent years i.e. 2007-08 and 2008-09 those were disallowed. In these circumstances, without making any comments on merits of the case, we direct the respondent No.3 to decide the application (Annexure-P/8) filed by the petitioner in pending appeal and for this purpose we issue the following directions :
(1) Petitioner to file application before the respondent No.3 for expeditious hearing of the application (Annexure-P/8) within a period of one week from today;
(2) Respondent No.3 on filing of the aforesaid application shall consider and decide the application (Annexure-P/8) expeditiously as far as possible within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of the aforesaid application.
(3) For a period of 3 weeks or till the decision of the application (Annexure-P/8), it is directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for enforcement of recovery of the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008/09.
No order as to costs.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Mool Chand Garg)
Judge Judge
Khan*