GOPAKUMAR PARAMESWARAN, vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/9701/2024HC KeralaKLHC01090346202412 March 2024Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the Writ Petition, directing the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's applications for condonation of delay (Ext.P3) and stay (Ext.P4) after affording an opportunity of hearing. Crucially, the Court ordered that any proceedings for recovery of amounts assessed in the order of assessment (Ext.P1) shall remain suspended until orders are passed on Exts.P3 and P4. The Court clarified that the 2nd respondent would only need to pass orders on merits on the stay application if they decide to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The principle established is that procedural applications for condonation of delay and stay should be considered with a hearing before recovery is initiated, and recovery can be suspended pending this consideration.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gopakumar Parameswaran, proprietor of M/s. Vijaya Agencies, is challenging an assessment order for the assessment year 2018-19. He filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (2nd respondent), along with an application for condonation of delay and an application for stay. The petitioner's sole request is for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and decide on the delay condonation and stay applications after providing a hearing. He also seeks a suspension of recovery proceedings for the assessed amounts pending the disposal of these applications.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals to consider and pass orders on his applications for condonation of delay and stay, after affording an opportunity of hearing. 2. Whether recovery proceedings for amounts assessed in the order of assessment should be suspended pending the disposal of the delay condonation and stay applications. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner seeks a direction for the 2nd respondent to consider his applications for condonation of delay and stay, with an opportunity of hearing, and to suspend recovery pending these decisions. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Department was heard, but their specific contentions are not detailed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

None explicitly mentioned in the provided text.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 9701 OF 2024 PETITIONER(S): GOPAKUMAR PARAMESWARAN, AGED 47 YEARS PROPRIETOR, M/S. VIJAYA AGENCIES, MANNADIAR LANE, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678101 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA ACHYUTH MENON PARVATHY MENON PADMANATHAN K.V. RESPONDENT(S): 1 ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, PIN – 110001 BY ADVS. P.R.AJITH KUMAR(K/000708/1998), STANDING COUNSEL CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C.)NO.9701 OF 2024 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 12th day of March, 2024 The petitioner suffered Ext.P1 order of assessment for the assessment year 2018-19, under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the 2nd respondent, together with Ext.P3 application for condonation of delay and Ext.P4 application for stay. The only relief sought for by the petitioner is for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P3 and P4 applications, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to suspend recovery of any amounts assessed as due, in terms of Ext.P1, pending disposal of those applications.

Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Department also.

W.P.(C.)NO.9701 OF 2024 3 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the limited nature of the relief sought for by the petitioner, this Writ Petition will stand disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P3 and P4 applications, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Till such time as orders are passed on Exts.P3 and P4, any proceedings for recovery of amounts assessed as due in terms of Ext.P1 shall remain suspended. It is make clear that, the 2nd respondent needs to pass orders on merits on the application for stay, only if he decides to condone the delay in filing the appeal. GOPINATH P. JUDGE NB/12-3

W.P.(C.)NO.9701 OF 2024 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9701/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 14-02-2024 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 14-02-2024 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 14-02-2024 RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →