PUNATHIL NISHRIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the writ appeals, finding no illegality in the judgments of the learned Single Judge. The Court acknowledged that the assessees' appeals against the assessment orders were pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and that they could move stay applications before that authority. The Court noted that the assessees had not filed such stay applications. However, the Court granted a further opportunity, directing that if the appellants prefer 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 core issue of the legality of the 20% pre-deposit condition was not directly decided on merits but was addressed by directing the appellate authority to expedite the disposal of stay applications and appeals.
What were the facts?
These two writ appeals are filed by Puliyammakkal Mathai Sebastian and Punathil Nishriya, assessees under the Income Tax Act, 1961. They are aggrieved by identical orders from the Income Tax Officer (ITO) requiring them to remit 20% of the demand as a condition for being treated as persons not in default. The assessees had preferred statutory appeals against their assessment orders before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and also moved applications under Section 220(6) of the IT Act before the ITO. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed their writ petitions challenging the 20% pre-deposit condition. The assessees are now challenging the Single Judge's judgments before the Division Bench.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the condition imposed by the Income Tax Officer to remit 20% of the demand as a condition for treating the assessees as persons not in default, while their statutory appeals are pending, is legally sustainable. Assessee's Contention: The assessees argued that the condition imposed by the ITO was arbitrary and illegal, especially when their appeals against the assessment orders were already pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). They sought to challenge this condition through writ petitions. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, contended that the assessees had the remedy of filing stay applications before the Appellate Authority. The judgment notes that the assessees had not moved such stay applications before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
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 appellants are aggrieved by the identical orders passed by the 1st respondent to remit 20% of the demand as a condition for treating them as persons not in default.
Both the appellants are assessees under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the IT Act). Aggrieved by the assessment order, the appellants preferred statutory appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appellants 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 appellants to remit 20% of the demand as a condition for treating them as persons not in default. The appellants filed writ petitions challenging the said condition imposed. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. The appellants are before us challenging the judgments in the writ petitions.
We have heard Sri.S. Ananthakrishnan, the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned standing counsel for the income tax department. As stated already, the appeals preferred by the appellants against the assessment orders are pending before the Appellate Authority/the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appellants can very well move stay applications before the Appellate Authority. It appears that the appellants have moved no such stay applications. The learned Single Judge has granted one week's time to the appellants to file the stay applications. We see no illegality in the impugned judgments. Hence, we dismiss the writ appeals. However, if the appellants prefer 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 →- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
