SUNIL KAMBRATH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/19288/2024HC KeralaKLHC01109746202429 May 2024Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal (Ext.P2) as expeditiously as possible. If the delay is condoned, the 3rd respondent is further directed to take up the stay application (Ext.P3) and pass an appropriate order expeditiously. The entire exercise is to be completed within a period of two months. Crucially, the Court ordered that there shall be no recovery proceedings pursuant to the ex-parte assessment order (Ext.P1) until the aforementioned exercise is completed. The principle is that statutory appeals and related interim relief applications should be considered promptly, and recovery should be stayed pending such consideration.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sunil Kambrath, is an assessee. The Income Tax Department, through the 2nd respondent (The Assessment Unit), issued a show cause notice under Section 148A alleging escapement of income. Subsequently, an ex-parte assessment order (Ext.P1) was passed for the assessment year 2018-2019. The petitioner challenged this order by filing an appeal (Ext.P2) before the 3rd respondent (The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)), along with an application to condone the delay in filing the appeal and a stay petition (Ext.P3). The petitioner's grievance is that recovery proceedings are being initiated pursuant to the ex-parte assessment order while the appeal and stay petition are pending.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 3rd respondent (The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) should consider the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal (Ext.P2) expeditiously? 2. If the delay is condoned, whether the 3rd respondent should consider the stay application (Ext.P3) expeditiously? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner's counsel argued that recovery steps were being taken while the appeal and stay petition were pending before the appellate authority. The petitioner sought a direction for expeditious disposal of the delay condonation and stay applications and a stay on recovery proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents was heard. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities by the revenue were recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A

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 WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 19288 OF 2024 PETITIONER: SUNIL KAMBRATH AGED 52 YEARS S/O GANGADHARAN 11 ASMITA BREZE TOWER STATION ROAD NR ASMITA MA MIRA ROAD EAST THANE- 401107 MAHARASTRA NOW RESIDING AT KINATTINGAL HOUSE, GANGOTRI NAGAR, PALAKKAD COLLECTORATE S.O, PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN – 678 001. BY ADV DIVYA RAVINDRAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 & TPS AAYKAR BHAWAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN – 680 001. 2 THE ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTER, NEW DELHI REPRESENTED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER., PIN – 110 001. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTER (NFAC), NEW DELHI-., PIN – 110 001. BY ADVS. P.G. JAYASHANKAR PGJ KEERTHIVAS GIRI, STANDING COUNSEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.19288 OF 2024 : 2 :

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is an assessee before the Income Tax Department. Pursuant to show cause notice issued under section 148A alleging escapement of income, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P1 ex-parte assessment order for the assessment year 2018-2019. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the 3rd respondent. The appeal was filed along with an application to condone delay. The petitioner also preferred Ext.P3 stay petition.

2.

The grievance of the petitioner is that pending consideration of Ext.P2 appeal steps are being taken to realize the amount pursuant to Ext.P1. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner

WP(C) NO.19288 OF 2024 : 3 : and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents. Since Ext.P2 is a statutory appeal, there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the application for condonation delay in filing Ext.P2 appeal, as expeditiously as possible. If the delay is condoned, the 3rd respondent shall take up Ext.P3 application for stay, and pass appropriate order expeditiously. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months. Till such time, there shall not be any recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1. MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SRJ

WP(C) NO.19288 OF 2024 : 4 :

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19288/2024 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2 ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 147 R.W.S 144 OF THE ACT DATED 18.01.2024 FOR AY 2018-19 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 21.05.2024 FILED AGAINST THE EXT P1 ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR AY 201-19 IN FORM 35. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY 2018-19 DATED 21.05.2024 FILED AGAINST THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED ALONG WITH EXT P1 ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECOVERY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1 ST RESPONDENT DATED 06.05.2024.

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →