2016 (7) TMI 326 - HC - Income Tax

Judgment on Income Tax Act proviso applicability and writ petition dismissal, with orders for reconsideration by Appellate Authority.

Bank Of Baroda Versus The Income Tax Officer (TDS)

The High Court of Karnataka, in a judgment by Mr. H.G. Ramesh, J., addressed issues concerning the applicability of the first proviso to Section 201(1) of ... Stay of demand - Non applicability of the first proviso to Section 201(1) - Held that:- As Revenue submitted that the appellant has now furnished a certificate dated 11.06.2015 contemplated under the first proviso to Section 201(1) of the Act in our opinion, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge as well as the order passed by First Appellate Authority rejecting the appellant’s application filed for interim stay are liable to be set aside and the matter requires to be reconsidered by the Appellate Authority, namely the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. The Appellate Authority shall inter alia consider as to whether the first proviso to Section 201(1) of the Act is applicable to the facts of the case or not. All contentions of both the parties are kept open. The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. Issues:1. Applicability of the first proviso to Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Dismissal of writ petitions by the learned Single Judge.3. Rejection of the interlocutory applications for stay of demand.Analysis:Issue 1: Applicability of the first proviso to Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961The appellant, a bank, contended that the First Appellate Authority and the learned Single Judge failed to consider the applicability of the first proviso to Section 201(1) of the Act to the case. The appellant argued that the proviso was relevant to the circumstances. On the other hand, the respondents, representing the Revenue, pointed out that the appellant had recently provided a certificate dated 11.06.2015 as required by the first proviso to Section 201(1) of the Act. Consequently, the court concluded that the orders of the learned Single Judge and the First Appellate Authority should be set aside. The matter was directed to be reconsidered by the Appellate Authority, specifically the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), while emphasizing the need to determine the applicability of the first proviso to Section 201(1) of the Act.Issue 2: Dismissal of writ petitions by the learned Single JudgeThe appeals were filed against an order of a learned Single Judge who had dismissed the appellant's writ petitions. The Single Judge's decision was based on affirming the interlocutory order passed by the First Appellate Authority, which rejected the applications for stay of the demand dated 16.03.2015. The appeals were in response to the orders of the Assessing Officer dated 23.02.2015, treating the appellant as an assessee in default. The court, after hearing both parties, decided to set aside the orders of the learned Single Judge and the First Appellate Authority, directing a reconsideration of the matter by the Appellate Authority.Issue 3: Rejection of the interlocutory applications for stay of demandThe interlocutory applications filed by the appellant for grant of stay of the demand dated 16.03.2015 were rejected by the First Appellate Authority, a decision that was upheld by the learned Single Judge. However, the court found that the orders of both authorities were to be set aside. The court emphasized that the Appellate Authority should review the matter in light of the first proviso to Section 201(1) of the Act and kept all contentions of both parties open for consideration. Additionally, the court noted that the disposal of the appeals rendered the interim stay application moot.In conclusion, the High Court of Karnataka, in the judgment delivered by Mr. H.G. Ramesh, J., addressed the issues surrounding the applicability of the first proviso to Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the dismissal of writ petitions by the learned Single Judge, and the rejection of interlocutory applications for stay of demand. The court set aside the previous orders, directing a reconsideration by the Appellate Authority while emphasizing the need to assess the applicability of the relevant statutory proviso.