BADER SULTANA KAKAD vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/19200/2024HC KeralaKLHC01109550202429 May 2024Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the 2nd respondent, the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), to consider the petitioner's application for condonation of delay expeditiously. If the delay is condoned, the 2nd respondent is further directed to consider the stay petition filed by the petitioner expeditiously. The entire exercise of considering both the delay condonation and the stay petition is to be completed within a period of two months from the date of the order. Crucially, the Court ordered that recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be deferred until the aforementioned exercise is completed. The principle established is that statutory appeals and related applications should be dealt with promptly, and recovery should be stayed pending such consideration to protect the assessee's rights.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bader Sultana Kakad, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenges the recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to an assessment order for Assessment Year 2016-17. The assessee had filed a statutory appeal (Ext.P2) against this assessment order before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. However, this appeal was filed with a delay of 37 days, for which a condonation of delay application (Ext.P3) was also submitted. Simultaneously, a stay petition (Ext.P4) was filed against the recovery proceedings. The assessee's grievance was that recovery steps were being taken while the appeal and delay condonation application were pending.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 2nd respondent (Joint Commissioner (Appeals)) should consider the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner in respect of her statutory appeal against the assessment order for AY 2016-17? 2. If the delay is condoned, whether the 2nd respondent should consider the stay petition filed by the petitioner against recovery proceedings? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that recovery proceedings were being pursued despite the pendency of her statutory appeal and the application for condonation of delay. She sought directions for the expeditious disposal of these applications and a stay on recovery. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents was heard, but their specific contentions are not detailed in the provided text.

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 MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 19200 OF 2024 PETITIONER: BADER SULTANA KAKAD AGED 57 YEARS 11/460, METRO BAZAR, MARKET ROAD, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 014. BY ADVS. R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA ACHYUTH MENON PADMANATHAN K.V. RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PIN – 110 001. 2 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, PIN – 110 001. BY ADVS. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM P.R.AJITH KUMAR(K/000708/1998), STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.19200 OF 2024 : 2 :

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is an assessee under the Income tax Act, 1961. Against Ext.P1 assessment order for the Assessment year 2016-17, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal before the 2nd respondent. Since there is a delay of 37 days, the petitioner has also filed Ext.P3 application for condonation of delay. The petitioner has also preferred Ext.P4 stay petition against recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that during the pendency of Ext.P2 appeal steps are being taken for realization of the amount pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order.

3.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

WP(C) NO.19200 OF 2024 : 3 :

Ext.P2 is a statutory appeal. The same has been filed along with an application to condone delay. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the application for conodation of delay, as expeditiously as possible. If the delay is condoned, the 2nd respondent shall consider Ext.P4 stay petition expeditiously. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months. Till such time, the recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be deferred. MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SRJ

WP(C) NO.19200 OF 2024 : 4 :

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19200/2024 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 22-02-2024. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 29-04-2024. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 29-04-2024. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 29-04-2024. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 29879/2023 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD. 20-09-2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →