SMT. ANILA KUMARI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/41318/2023HC KeralaKLHC01092477202308 December 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH4 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 and pass appropriate orders on the delay condonation and stay applications filed along with the appeals expeditiously, preferably within two months. The Court further ordered that no recovery shall be effected from the petitioner in respect of the assessment orders until the appeals are decided. The Court did not decide the merits of the addition made under Section 69A but granted interim relief. The principle established is that in cases where appeals are pending with applications for delay condonation and stay, and the assessee raises a prima facie case regarding the factual basis of the addition, the appellate authority should be directed to consider these applications expeditiously, and recovery should be stayed pending such consideration.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Smt. Anila Kumari, a widow, filed a writ petition challenging assessment orders related to her late husband's income for assessment year 2014-2015. The assessment was completed under Section 147 read with Section 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. An amount of Rs. 1,25,20,000/-, reported by the bank, was added as income from other sources under Section 69A. The petitioner claims her husband never possessed such funds and the bank statement does not reflect this amount being remitted to his account. Appeals, along with applications for condonation of delay and stay, were filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner sought a direction for expeditious disposal of these appeals and a stay on further proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) should be directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the appeals filed by the petitioner, including the interlocutory applications for condonation of delay and stay, expeditiously. 2. Whether further proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment orders should be stayed until the appeals are decided. Assessee's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the addition of Rs. 1,25,20,000/- under Section 69A was erroneous as her husband never had such funds, and the bank statement did not corroborate the remittance. She sought directions for the expeditious disposal of her appeals and stay of recovery proceedings. Revenue's Arguments: No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue in the judgment. The judgment focuses on the petitioner's prayer for interim relief and expeditious disposal of appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 41318 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S: SMT. ANILA KUMARI AGED 55 YEARS W/O. LATE JAYAPRAKASH, PRAKASH MANDIRAM, KODUMON, PATHANAMTHITTA -, PIN - 691555 BY ADVS. AJI V.DEV ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV S.SAJEEVAN JOSEPH P.S. RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE CONNAUGHT LANE, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PIN - 110001 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVALLA RANGE, WARD 1 & TPS, THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689101 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, JAWAHARLAL STADIUM, DELHI -, PIN - 110003 OTHER PRESENT: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM-SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 41318 OF 2023 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 8th day of December, 2023 1.The present writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:- “i. Call for the records and issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in EXT.P.3, EXT.P.4(a) and EXT.P.5(a) appeals as expeditiously as possible. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction staying further proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to EXT.P.2, P.4 & P.5 orders as demanded through EXT.P.6 demand notice. iii. Alternatively, call for the records and issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 3rdrespondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in EXT.P.3(a) interlocutory application for condonation of delay and EXT.P.4(b) & EXT.P.5(b) interlocutory applications for stay as expeditiously as possible.” 2.The petitioner, who is a widow, was dependent on the income of her late husband Mr. Jayaprakash P, who was an auto rickshaw driver. The assessment under Section 147 r/w Section 144 and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( ‘the IT Act’ for short) was completed in respect of the assessment year 2014-2015 of the income of the petitioner’s husband.

3.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, an amount of Rs. 1,25,20,000/- was reported by the Bank to the income tax

WP(C) NO. 41318 OF 2023 3 authority and the said amount was added under Section 69A of the IT Act, as the income from other sources. The assessment order was finalized with the tax, penalty and interest demand. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s husband never had this kind of money and the statement of the bank would disclose that said amount was never remitted to the account of the petitioner’s husband. 4.Considering the said fact and circumstances and also taken into consideration that appeals have been filed in Exts.P3(a), Ext.P4(b) and Ext.P5(b) against the Exts.P1, P4 and P5 orders, this court deem it appropriate to direct the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the delay application and stay application filed along with the appeals, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months. No recovery shall be effected from the petitioner in respect of the orders in Exts.P1, P4 and P5 till then.

The writ petition is disposed of as above. DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE SJ

WP(C) NO. 41318 OF 2023 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41318/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 19.03.2022 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 04.01.2016 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 20.10.2022 Exhibit P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY DATED 22.11.2023 Exhibit P3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY DATED 22.11.2023 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) DATED 24.09.2022 Exhibit P4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST PENALTY ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) DATED 20.10.2022 Exhibit P4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY DATED 22.11.2023 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER U/S 271F DATED 24.09.2022 Exhibit P5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST PENALTY ORDER U/S 271F DATED 20.10.2022 Exhibit P5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY DATED 22.11.2023 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.09.2023

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →