ROSH THANDAYAMPARAMBIL VIJAYAN vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/17784/2023HC KeralaKLHC01038668202301 June 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition by directing the 1st respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider the stay petition (Ext.P4) filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of two months. The Court further ordered that coercive proceedings pursuant to the demand notice (Ext.P5) shall be kept in abeyance until the 1st respondent passes orders on the stay petition. The judgment does not decide the validity of the assessment order itself, nor does it delve into the merits of the appeal. The primary focus was on providing interim relief to the petitioner pending the decision on his stay application.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rosh Thandayuparambil Vijayan, is aggrieved by an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Income Tax Department under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act. He has filed a statutory appeal (Ext.P3) against this order. Subsequently, the respondents issued a demand notice (Ext.P5) dated 10.05.2023. The petitioner contends that pursuing this demand notice while his appeal is pending would cause him significant hardship, and he believes he has a strong case to have the assessment order set aside. The respondents, represented by Standing Counsel, denied the petitioner's allegations but acknowledged that the petitioner has invoked his statutory appellate remedy.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Department's assessment order (Ext.P1), passed under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, is valid and legally sustainable? 2. Whether the issuance of a demand notice (Ext.P5) pending a statutory appeal (Ext.P3) against the assessment order is appropriate and would cause undue hardship to the petitioner? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argues that pursuing the demand notice while his statutory appeal is pending would cause him untold hardship. He believes he has a fair chance of getting the impugned assessment order set aside. Revenue's Contentions: The Standing Counsel for the respondents denied all allegations made by the petitioner. However, they submitted that since the petitioner has invoked his statutory appellate remedy, the appeal can be considered by the competent authority within a reasonable time.

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 N.NAGARESH THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 17784 OF 2023 PETITIONER: ROSH THANDAYAMPARAMBIL VIJAYAN AGED 53 YEARS, THANDAYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, VALAPAD POST, VALAPAD, KERALA, PIN – 680 567 BY ADVS. C.A.JOJO JIMMI JOSE RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110 001 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110 001 3 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 & TPS, GURUVAYUR, WEST NADA THRISSUR, PIN – 680 101 4 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER DCIT CIRCLE 1(1) TPS TRISSUR AYAKAR BHAVAN, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 001 BY ADV SREEJITH V S, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.17784 OF 2023 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 1st day of June, 2023 Aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order passed by the Income Tax Department invoking Section 147 read with Section 144 r/w Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has filed Ext.P3 appeal. 2. The petitioner submits that in the meanwhile, the respondents have issued Ext.P5 demand notice dated 10.05.2023. Pending the statutory appeal, if the demand notice is pursued, the petitioner will be put to untold hardship. The petitioner has a fair chance to get the impugned assessment order set aside, contends the petitioner. 3. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and denied all the allegations made by the petitioner. However, on behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that since the petitioner has invoked his statutory W.P.(C) NO.17784 OF 2023 3 appellate remedy, the appeal can be considered by the competent authority within a reasonable time. In view of the facts as stated above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P4 stay petition filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of two months. Till the 1st respondent passes orders on Ext.P4, coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 shall be kept in abeyance. Sd/- N.NAGARESH JUDGE ded W.P.(C) NO.17784 OF 2023 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17784/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1

DATED 27.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 27.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 AOF THE APPEAL DATED 26.04.2023 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 AOF THE STAY PETITION DATED26.04.2023 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 AOF THE DEMAND LETTER DATED 10.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →