KADAMMAT MADHAVAN SHIBU, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the third respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, to consider and pass orders on the stay applications (Exts.P5 and P6) filed along with the appeals (Exts.P3 and P4). Crucially, the third respondent is also directed to consider the question of whether the delay in filing the appeals can be condoned. Until orders are passed on the stay applications, the demands arising from the assessment and penalty orders (Exts.P1 and P2) will remain suspended. The court clarified that the third respondent should only pass orders on the stay applications on merits if the delay in filing the appeals is condoned. The petitioner is to be afforded an opportunity of hearing before the order is issued.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Kadammat Madhavan Shibu, is challenging an order of assessment (Ext.P1) and an order of penalty (Ext.P2) for the assessment year 2021-22. These orders were passed under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner filed appeals (Exts.P3 and P4) against these orders before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), New Delhi, along with applications for stay (Exts.P5 and P6). The petitioner contended that there was a delay in filing the appeals and that sufficient cause had been shown for condoning this delay. Pending the consideration of these applications, the petitioner sought a suspension of recovery proceedings.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the delay in filing the appeals against the assessment and penalty orders can be condoned, based on the sufficient cause shown by the petitioner? 2. Whether the recovery proceedings for the amounts due under the assessment and penalty orders should be suspended pending the disposal of the stay applications and the appeals? Assessee's Arguments: The petitioner argued that there was a delay in filing the appeals and that sufficient cause had been provided for condoning this delay. The petitioner further requested that, pending the consideration of the delay condonation and stay applications, any recovery proceedings for the amounts demanded under the assessment and penalty orders should be suspended. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department was heard, but does not detail the specific arguments made by the revenue.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T The petitioner suffered Ext.P1 order of assessment and Ext.P2 order of penalty for the assessment year 2021-22 under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner preferred Exts.P3 and P4 appeals together with Exts.P5 and P6 applications for stay.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is some delay in filing the appeals and sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay as well. It is submitted that, pending consideration of the applications for condonation of delay and the applications for stay, any proceedings for recovery of amounts due under Exts.P1 and P2 orders may be suspended.
Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department also.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing the third respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P5 and P6 applications for stay filed in Exts.P3 and P4 appeals, while also considering the question as to whether the delay in filing the appeals can be condoned. Till such time orders are passed on Exts.P5 and P6 the demands in Exts.P1 and P2 orders shall remain suspended. It is made clear that the third respondent needs to pass orders on Exts.P5 and P6 applications for stay, on merits, only if he decides to condone the delay in filing Exts.P3 and P4 appeals. Order as above will be issued after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. GOPINATH P., JUDGE rkj
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
