KC Santhosh vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court directed the second respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) to consider and dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner in accordance with the law, preferably within a period of three months from the date of the order. The Court further clarified that if the appeal was not taken up for final hearing within the stipulated three months, the second respondent should make every endeavor to decide the application for condonation of delay and the stay petition. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. No specific finding was made on the merits of the assessment order or the appeal itself, as the primary focus was on directing the appellate authority to proceed with the case.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, KC Santhosh, Managing Partner of M/s Able Engineering and Construction Corporation, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated for Assessment Year 2018-2019. The assessment order, passed by the assessment unit of the National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi, under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, determined the petitioner's total income at Rs. 1,40,93,485/-. The petitioner had deposited Rs. 1,14,13,100/- in the relevant assessment year. The petitioner challenged this order by filing an appeal (Exhibit P2) and a stay petition (Exhibit P4) before the second respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre). The appeal was filed with a delay, and a delay condonation application was pending. The petitioner received a communication (Exhibit P7) directing payment of 20% of the demand. The petitioner apprehended coercive action if the appeal and stay petition were not considered.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an appeal and stay petition are pending before the appellate authority, and coercive action is apprehended. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that he filed an appeal and a stay petition against the assessment order. He apprehended coercive action for the assessed tax if the appeal and stay petition were not considered by the appellate authority. Therefore, the writ petition was filed to seek a direction for the disposal of the pending appeal and stay petition. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue. The revenue was represented by a Standing Counsel, but their arguments are not detailed in the provided text.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT
The present writ petition has been filed impugning Exhibit P1 assessment order passed by the assessment of Unit of National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi, under Section 147 r/w Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For the assessment year 2018-2019, the assessing authority has treated the total income of the petitioner at Rs.1,40,93,485/-. In the relevant assessment year, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.1,14,13,100/-.
The petitioner has challenged the said order by filing Exhibit P2 appeal before the first respondent. The appeal is pending before the second respondent, as is evident from Exhibit P3 e-filing acknowledgment. The petitioner has also filed Exhibit P4 stay petition along with the appeal. The petitioner has also thereafter issued with Exhibit P7 communication directing him to pay 20% of the demand amount as per Exhibit P1. It is also submitted that the appeal is filed with a delay and delay condonation application is also pending. The : 3 : petitioner apprehends that if Exhibit P2 appeal and stay petition are not considered by the second respondent, coercive action for the assessed tax will be initiated by the third respondent. Hence, this writ petition.
Considering the facts and circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months. It is made clear that if Exhibit P2 appeal is not taken up for final hearing within three months as directed above, the second respondent should make every endeavour to decide the application for condonation of delay and also stay petition. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition stands finally disposed of. DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDGE.
Rv : 4 :
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
