2017 (11) TMI 1609

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inally and are disposed by this order. 2. Petitioner is stated to be a private limited company, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Being aggrieved by the interlocutory order dated 15/11/2017 (Annexure-H to the writ petitions), passed by respondent No.1, directing payment of the balance tax demand and also, pursuant to order dated 07/11/2017 (Annexure-F), passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Bengaluru ("Appellate Tribunal" for short), in Stay Petition No.229/Bang/2017 in ITA.No.1190/Bang/2014, pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14, the petitioner has presented these writ petitions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was filed in the y....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al. Learned counsel contends that possibly, the Appellate Tribunal was influenced by the earlier order passed by it on 23/10/2017 and had passed the impugned order dated 07/11/2017 whereas, the order of the Division Bench is dated 16/11/2017, which is subsequent thereto. He submits that having regard to the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court, the appeal (out of which these writ petitions arise) would have to be heard on its merits and therefore, the petitioner would have to be protected by certain interim orders pending disposal of the appeal as the respondent is seeking to recover the balance amount as the interim stay is not continued by the Appellate Tribunal. 5. It is submitted at the Bar that the appeal is slated ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sponse, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that pursuant to the impugned order dated 07/11/2017 (Annexure-F), order dated 15/11/2017 (Annexure-H) has been issued by respondent No.1 attaching the bank account of the petitioner. The petitioner is unable to carry on its financial transactions and if protective orders are not granted, then the revenue would inevitably recover the amount and the appeals of the petitioner would become infructuous. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length, I find that granting of any interim order in these writ petitions and keeping the writ petitions pending before this Court would not serve any purpose particularly, when the matter is set down for final arguments before th....