T.S.AJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the writ appeals, finding no illegality in the impugned judgments of the learned Single Judge. The Court noted that the appeals preferred by the appellant's father against the assessment orders were pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Court observed that the appellant could very well move stay applications before the Appellate Authority and that no such applications had been filed. The Court acknowledged that the learned Single Judge had granted one week's time for the appellant to file stay applications. The High Court directed that if the appellant prefers stay applications before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) within one week from the date of the order, the Commissioner shall consider and dispose of either the stay applications or the appeals themselves within a period of three weeks after receipt of the stay applications, after hearing both sides. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original assessment or the validity of the 20% demand condition itself, but rather on the procedural recourse available to the appellant.
What were the facts?
The appellant, T.S. Aji, is the son of a deceased assessee who had preferred statutory appeals against assessment orders. The deceased assessee had also filed an application under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to be treated as not in default. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) imposed a condition of remitting 20% of the demand for this to be considered. Following the assessee's death, the appellant filed writ petitions challenging this condition. The learned Single Judge dismissed these writ petitions. The appellant has now filed these writ appeals against the Single Judge's judgments.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the condition imposed by the Income Tax Officer to remit 20% of the demand as a prerequisite for treating the assessee as not in default, while statutory appeals are pending, is legally sustainable under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The appellant argued that the condition imposed by the ITO was arbitrary and that he should be allowed to pursue his statutory remedies without such a pre-condition, especially given the pendency of appeals. The appellant's counsel highlighted that the appellant had not filed stay applications before the Appellate Authority. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the standing counsel, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petitions and the High Court's subsequent dismissal of the writ appeals suggest an implicit acceptance of the ITO's action or the procedural path suggested by the court.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J.
In these writ appeals, the appellant is aggrieved by the identical orders passed by the 1st respondent to remit 20% of the demand as a condition for treating him as a person not in default.
The appellant's father was an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the IT Act). Aggrieved by the assessment order, the appellant's father preferred statutory appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appellant's father also moved an application u/s 220(6) of the IT Act before the 1st respondent. In response to the said application, the 1st respondent asked the appellant's father to remit 20% of the demand as a condition for treating him as a person not in default. In the meanwhile, the appellant's father died. The appellant filed writ petitions challenging the said condition imposed. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. The appellant is before us challenging the judgments in the writ petitions.
We have heard Sri.S. Ananthakrishnan, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned standing counsel for the income tax department. As stated already, the appeals preferred by the appellant's father against the assessment orders are pending before the Appellate Authority/the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appellant can very well move stay applications before the Appellate Authority. It appears that the appellant has moved no such stay applications. The learned Single Judge has granted one week's time to the appellant to file the stay applications. We see no illegality in the impugned judgments. Hence, we dismiss the writ appeals. However, if the appellant prefers stay applications before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) within one week from today, he shall consider and dispose of either the stay applications or the appeals itself within a period of three weeks after the receipt of the stay applications after hearing both sides. DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE Rp
More judgments on Section 220(6)
- Ramji Vaish, Allahabad vs ACIT, AllahabadITA 371/ALLD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed9 Jun 2026AY 2011-12
- Vijay Stone Product, Sonebhadra vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…ITA 4/ALLD/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2026AY 2011-12
- Susi Charitable Trust, Khurda vs The Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption)…ITA 582/CTK/2025[2026-27]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2026-27
- Jayant Security and Finance Ltd, Indore vs ACIT Central-2, BhopalITA 91/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
- Jayant Security and Finance Ltd, Indore vs ACIT Central-2, BhopalITA 90/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2025AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
