1. On 17 October 2019 we pass the following order:—
“None appears for the Respondents despite intimation. Mr. Jain undertakes to file affidavit of service during the course of today.
2. This Petition challenges the order dated 9 August 2019 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax sanctioning prosecution under section 279 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). It is the case of the Petitioners that the sanction has been granted in the face of the orders of the Apex Court in K.C. Builder v. ACIT [2004] 135 taxman 461 (SC) and the decision of the Bombay High Court in SBI DFHI Ltd. v. ACIT 2(1)2 Mumbai, in Income Tax Appeal No. 157 of 2017 rendered on 23 March 2018. This as the penalty under section 271(1)(c) has been deleted in the case of the Petitioners by the Tribunal.
3. The Petitioners seek a stay of the impugned order dated 9 August 2019. However, before granting any such relief it would be necessary to hear the Respondents. In the above view this Petition is kept for admission tomorrow. The Petitioners once more to serve the Respondents a copy of the Petition along with copy of this order. Stand over to 18 October 2019.”
2. Today, Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel appears for the Revenue and seeks time. Mr. Mohanty further informs us that pursuant to the sanction on 9 August 2019 under Section 279 of the Act, no prosecution has yet been launched. Mr. Mohanty seeks time to take instructions and file an affidavit-in-reply, if necessary.
3. In the above view, we adjourn the hearing of this Petition to 13 November 2019. Needless to state as the Petition is being adjourned at the instance of the Revenue, it would not take any steps in furtherance of the impugned order dated 13 August 2019.
Comments