DEVASSIA THANKACHAN NAMATTATHIL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/19363/2024HC KeralaKLHC01109971202430 May 2024Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala directed the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider the stay petition (Ext.P3) filed by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Pending the consideration of the stay petition, the Court ordered that there shall be no recovery steps taken against the petitioner pursuant to the ex-parte assessment order (Ext.P1). The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the pending stay petition and the need to prevent coercive recovery measures during this period. The ratio decidendi is that statutory remedies, including stay petitions, should be considered promptly to avoid prejudice to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Devassia Thankachan Namattathil, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961, is challenging an ex-parte assessment order (Ext.P1) passed under Section 147 of the Act. The petitioner has filed a statutory appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the second respondent. The petitioner's primary grievance is that recovery proceedings are being initiated for the amounts demanded in the assessment order while the appeal and stay petition are still pending. The writ petition seeks intervention from the High Court regarding this situation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) should consider the pending stay petition (Ext.P3) expeditiously? 2. Whether recovery steps should be stayed pending the disposal of the stay petition and the statutory appeal? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that recovery actions are being taken prematurely, while statutory remedies in the form of an appeal and a stay petition are pending before the appellate authority. The petitioner relies on the pendency of these statutory remedies to seek a stay on recovery. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents was heard, but their specific contentions or reliance on any authorities, circulars, or precedents are not detailed in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 19363 OF 2024 PETITIONER: DEVASSIA THANKACHAN NAMATTATHIL AGED 59 YEARS NAMATTATHIL HOUSE, AYIRAMKOLLI, AMBALAVAYAL, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN – 673 592. BY ADV S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENTS: 1 ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, 2ND FLOOR, E- RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110 003. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, E- RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110 003. 3 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, KALPETTA, SULTHAN BATHERY ROAD, KAINATTY, KALPETTA, WAYANAD, PIN – 673 122. 4 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NORTH BLOCK, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 001. SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.19363 OF 2024 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’). Ext.P1 is the ex-parte assessment order under Section 147 of the Act. Against Ext.P1, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal under Section 246A of the Act and Ext.P3 stay petition before the 2nd respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that during the pendency of the statutory appeal, steps are being taken for recovery of the amounts demanded in Ext.P1. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

3.

Since Ext.P2 is a statutory appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition is pending, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3

WP(C).No.19363 OF 2024 3 stay petition, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time, there shall not be any recovery steps against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SPR

WP(C).No.19363 OF 2024 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER’ S EXHIBITS :- EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24-2-2024 UNDER SECTION 147 R.W.S 144 AND 144B OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2018-19 ALONG WITH THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 23-3- 2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2018-19. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 22-3-2024 E-FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2018-19. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →