GIGI GEORGE vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/31439/2023HC KeralaKLHC01069769202326 September 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the 2nd respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) to decide the petitioner's stay application within one month from the date of production of the order. For a period of one month, the assessment order (Exhibit P-1) and the recovery notice (Exhibit P-4) shall not be given effect to. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment or the appeal itself, focusing solely on expediting the decision on the stay application and providing a temporary reprieve from recovery. The ratio decidendi is that a taxpayer facing recovery proceedings should not be made to wait indefinitely for a decision on their stay application, and the appellate authority must act expeditiously.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gigi George, is challenging an assessment order dated December 28, 2022, for assessment year 2021-22, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The total income was assessed at Rs. 99,57,615/-, including additions of Rs. 69,10,100/- under Section 69A and Rs. 28,17,515/- under Section 69. The total tax determined was Rs. 97,87,914/-. The petitioner filed an appeal and a stay application before the 2nd respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) on January 24, 2023. As of the date of the writ petition, no decision had been taken on the stay application, and the petitioner was facing recovery action for the assessed tax.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 2nd respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) should be directed to expeditiously dispose of the petitioner's appeal and stay application, considering the pending recovery action? (Question of procedure and administrative delay). The petitioner argued that the appeal and stay application were filed on January 24, 2023, and no decision has been taken, while recovery proceedings are initiated. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 4TH ASWINA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 31439 OF 2023 PETITIONER: GIGI GEORGE, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. K. V. GEORGE, 31/171, KARIMATTAM HOUSE, RUBY NAGAR, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686103. BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA PARVATHY MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PIN – 110001. 2 NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, PIN - 110001, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 3 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, OFFICE OF ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVALLA RANGE, T.K. ROAD, THIRUVALLA, PIN – 689101. BY ADV. SRI. JOSE JOSEPH – SC – IT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 31439 OF 2023 2 DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C) No.31439 of 2023 ------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of September, 2023

JUDGMENT

1.

Assessment Order in respect of the assessment year 2021- 22 was finalised on 28.12.2022 by the assessing authority regarding the income of the petitioner under Section 143 (3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act 1961. The total income of the petitioner has been assessed as Rs.99,57,615/-. Income of the petitioner include additions under Section 69A and Section 69 of the Act to the extent of Rs.69,10,100/- and Rs.28,17,515/- respectively for the assessment periods. Total sum of Rs.97,87,914/- is the tax determined for the income of the petitioner for which notice has been issued. The petitioner has filed an appeal against the said assessment order along with the stay application before the 2nd respondent on 24.01.2023. However, no decision has been taken on the said application of the petitioner till date and the petitioner is facing recovery of the tax determined in the assessment order.

WP(C) NO. 31439 OF 2023 3

2.

The present writ petition has been filed for a direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of Exhibit P-2 appeal and Exhibit P-3 stay application expeditiously.

3.

Considering the said submissions and also taking into account that the petitioner is facing recovery action for the tax determined in the assessment order, the 2nd respondent is directed to take a decision on the stay application of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this order before the 2nd respondent.

4.

For a period of one month Exhibit P-1 order issued by the 1st respondent and Exhibit P-4 recovery notice issued by the 3rd respondent shall not be given effect to. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is finally disposed of. DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE Svn

WP(C) NO. 31439 OF 2023 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31439/2023 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2021-22 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 28-12-2022 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2021-22 DTD. 24-01-2023 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2021-22 DTD. 24-01-2023 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 15-09-2023

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →