Case Law Details
Umesh Shetty Vs PCIT (Karnataka High Court)
The Kerala High Court considered a writ petition challenging the Assessing Officer’s order rejecting waiver of statutory deposit pending appeal and the consequential revisional order. The petitioner contended that the assessment was high-pitched and that an appeal against the assessment was pending. Although an application seeking waiver of the statutory deposit was filed as required, the Assessing Officer rejected it, and the revisional authority also rejected the revision while granting payment in four equal monthly instalments to be completed by 28.02.2022. The petitioner relied on the Instruction dated 02.02.1993, which empowers the revisional authority to interfere in exceptional cases where the assessment appears unreasonably high-pitched or where genuine hardship is caused. It was argued that the revisional authority passed a non-speaking order without examining either of these requirements. The respondents were unable to dispute this position. The Court held that the revisional authority was bound to consider the request in light of the said Instruction, particularly the requirement to assess high-pitched assessment and genuine hardship. Consequently, the Court quashed the revisional order and restored the matter for fresh consideration, directing that no coercive steps be taken to enforce the 20% deposit until the reconsideration proceedings are concluded before the revisional authority of the Kerala High Court.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
The petitioner has impugned the Assessing Officer’s [the second respondent and referred to as the AO] order on waiver of the statutory deposit pending appeal and the order in revision. The AO’s order is dated 28.07.2021 [Annexure-B] and the order in revision by the first respondent is dated 16.11.2021 [Annexure-K].
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has impugned the High Pitched assessment and the petitioner’s appeal is pending consideration. Insofar as the statutory deposit, the petitioner, as is required in law, has submitted necessary application before the AO for waiver which is rejected, and the petitioner’s revision petition is also rejected but affording four equal monthly installments subject to the condition that these four equal installments must be paid before 28.02.2022.
3. The learned counsel further submits that in terms of the instructions issued by the concerned viz., Instruction dated 02.02.1993, the first respondent can interfere with the AO’s order on deposit in exceptional circumstances viz., where assessment order appears to be unreasonably high pitched or where there is genuine hardship caused to the assessee. Though subsequent instructions are issued wherein certain terms of the Instructions dated 02.02.1993 are modified, the aforesaid instructions remain undisturbed. It has been consistently held by the Courts based on these instructions that the first respondent must examine a request as against the two requirements. But in the present case, the first respondent by a non speaking order, has rejected the petitioner’s application. Neither the high pitched nature of the assessment nor the question of genuine hardship is examined.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents is unable to contest the argument based on the Instructions and the arguments that the first respondent’s impugned order is a non speaking order. In which event, the first respondent’s order must be quashed and the petition restored for reconsideration observing that the petitioner’s request must necessarily be considered in the light of the Instructions dated 02.02.1993 more specifically Instruction-B sub-rule[iii]. Therefore the following:
ORDER
[a] The petition is allowed in part and the order bearing No.ITBA/ ASK/F/73/ 2021-22/1036972509[1] of the first respondent – the revision authority [Annexure-K] is quashed.
b. The proceedings are restored to the First respondent for reconsideration as aforesaid. The petitioner shall appear, without further notice, before the first respondent on 11.04.2022.
c. It is needless to observe that the proceedings being restored, no coercive measures shall be taken for enforcing deposit of 20% until the conclusion of the proceedings before the first respondent.
Author Bio
