RAMACHANDRAN VIJAY vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIOENR OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/29879/2023HC KeralaKLHC01065670202320 September 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the 2nd respondent, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, to consider and decide the stay application (Ext.P3) expeditiously within a period of two months. For a period of two months from the date of the order, recovery proceedings in pursuance to the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall not be carried out against the petitioner. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the validity of the assessment order itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the stay application. The ratio decidendi is that appellate authorities should address stay applications promptly, and interim protection can be granted pending such decision.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ramachandran Vijay, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961, was assessed for the assessment year 2018-2019 under Sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Act. The total assessed income was Rs. 2,01,84,940/-. The petitioner filed an appeal against this assessment order (Ext.P1) before the 2nd respondent, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, along with a stay application (Ext.P3) on August 10, 2023. The petitioner sought a direction for the respondents to decide the stay application and, in the interim, to stay recovery proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should be directed to take a decision on the stay application filed by the petitioner? (Question of procedure) 2. Whether recovery proceedings should be stayed until a decision is taken on the stay application? (Question of procedure) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents should be directed to decide the stay application expeditiously. Further, if a decision is not taken, recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the assessment order should be stayed. Revenue's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the writ petition could be disposed of by directing the appellate authority to consider the petitioner's application within a time frame.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

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 DINESH KUMAR SINGH WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 29TH BHADRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 29879 OF 2023 PETITIONER: RAMACHANDRAN VIJAY AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAN, DEVI DURGA,VADAKKANTHARA, CHUNNAMBUTHARA, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 012. BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA PARVATHY MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIOENR OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PIN – 110 001. 2 NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE DELHI, PIN – 110 001 REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OTHER PRESENT: JOSE JOSEPH-SC-IT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 29879 OF 2023 2 DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J. -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 29879 OF 2023 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of September, 2023

J U D G M E N T

1.

The petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner was assessed for Income Tax under the provisions of Section 147 read with Section 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2018-2019. The total income of the petitioner assessed was Rs.2,01,84,940/-. Against the said assessment order, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent along with a stay application on 10.08.2023 in Ext.P2 and Ext.P3. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, respondents to be directed to take a decision on the stay application. If the decision is not taken, the WP(C) NO. 29879 OF 2023 3 recovery proceedings in pursuance to Ext.P1 assessment order should not be taken against the petitioner.

3.

Sri. Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that this writ petition can be disposed of with directions to the appellate authority to consider the application of the petitioner in a time frame manner.

4.

Considering the aforesaid submission, the 2nd respondent is directed to take up the Ext.P3 application for stay and decide the same expeditiously within a period of two months. For a period of two months, recovery proceedings in pursuance to Ext.P1 shall not be carried out against the petitioner. DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE rpr

WP(C) NO. 29879 OF 2023 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29879/2023 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 DTD. 22-03- 2023 Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPODNENT DTD. 10-08-2023 Exhibit P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 10-08-2023

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →