THE CENTRE FOR MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS),

The learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.Sherry Samuel Oommen would point out that the learned Single Judge had directed the 1st respondent to pass orders on the applications preferred by the appellant under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act for condonation of delay in filing returns which was necessary for a consideration of the claim for exemption made by the appellant on merits. The learned Single Judge, however, did not thereafter stay the recovery of the assessed amounts from the appellant for the aforementioned assessment years while directing consideration of stay applications/delay condonation applications preferred by the appellant along with the appeals filed before the First Appellate Authority under the Income Tax Act for the said assessment years.

We have also heard Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing counsel for the Income Tax Department.

On a consideration of the rival submissions, and finding that the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment has already directed the 1st respondent to dispose Ext.P3 series of applications within a specified time limit, and further that the 1st respondent has already summoned the appellant for a personal hearing in connection with the said applications, we dispose the writ appeal by modifying only the latter part of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge that directs the appellant to pay 20% of the assessed amounts pending consideration of the stay applications/delay condonation applications filed by the appellant before the First Appellate Authority (5th respondent) along with the appeals against the assessment order for the assessment years aforementioned. We find this latter direction of the learned Single to be legally unsustainable since the appellant has made out a prima facie case warranting a protection from recovery of the disputed demands pending consideration of the stay applications/condonation of delay applications by the First Appellate Authority.

Accordingly, while we maintain that part of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge that directs the 1st respondent to dispose Ext.P3 series of applications within a prescribed time, we modify the latter part of the judgment of the learned Single Judge and direct that the 5th respondent shall consider the stay applications/delay condonation applications preferred by the appellant, along with the appeals against the assessment orders for the assessment years aforementioned, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The recovery of the amounts confirmed against the appellant by the assessment orders impugned in the appeals before the 5th respondent, shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 5th respondent in the delay condonation applications/stay applications referred above. The writ appeal is disposed as above.