CHALAKKAL ANTONY JOSE VALLOOR vs. THE ADDITIONAL/ JOINT/ DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME-TAX OFFICER,

The petitioner is an assessee under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) and is engaged in carrying out the business of an advertising agency under the name and style “Yesgo Advertising Media”. The petitioner did not file return of its income under Section 139 of the Act for the assessment year 2017-18. As per the information made available through AIMS module in ITBA system of the Income Tax Department, it was noticed that the assessee was involved in huge financial transactions during the relevant assessment year, including the contractual receipts under Section 194C of Rs.2,31,56,103/-, interest

The petitioner neither filed ITR nor furnished report of audit in prescribed Form before the due date as prescribed under the provisions of Section 44AB of the Act.

A notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the petitioner on 31.3.2021 directing him to file return within a period of 30 days from the service of the notice. Despite receipt of the said notice, the petitioner did not file his return of income in compliance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act. Thereafter, notice dated 16.7.2021 under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued. But, no response came from the petitioner in response to the said notice under Section 142(1) of the Act.

The assessment order would disclose that though the petitioner was granted several opportunities to file return and give response to the notices, but the petitioner failed to do so. In view thereof, best judgment assessment was carried out and total assessed income was determined as Rs.3,85,42,019/- on which tax has been demanded and order has been passed for proceeding for penalty under Section 271B of the Act.

Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the petitioner has filed appeal on 3.8.2022, along with an application for stay, which are pending before the 2nd respondent.

The petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ petition as this Court is exercising the parallel jurisdiction with the appellate authority. But, no such jurisdiction can be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it is incumbent upon the WP(C) NO. 37397 OF 2023 6 appellate authority to decide the stay application of the petitioner, at the earliest.

In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the stay application, Ext.P17, pending before it, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of two months. Pending interlocutory application, if any, in the writ petition stands dismissed. DINESH KUMAR SINGH