KELATHPARAMBIL UMMDER MUHAMMED SHAREEF vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Kelathparambil Ummder Muhammed Shareef, is challenging an order of assessment (Ext.P1) for the assessment year 2021-2022. He filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent) along with a stay application (Ext.P3). The petitioner apprehends recovery proceedings for the amounts due under the assessment order while his stay application is pending. The writ petition was filed seeking a direction for the expeditious disposal of the stay application and a stay on recovery proceedings until then. The revenue was represented by the Standing Counsel.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala, considering the facts and circumstances and the limited nature of the relief sought, disposed of the writ petition. The Court directed the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass orders on the stay application (Ext.P3) expeditiously, and at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that any demand pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance until orders are passed on the stay application. The ratio decidendi is that appellate authorities should consider stay applications expeditiously, and interim relief can be granted by keeping recovery in abeyance pending the decision on the stay application, especially when the relief sought is limited and the matter is urgent.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) should be directed to consider and pass orders on the stay application (Ext.P3) expeditiously, and if so, within what timeframe? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of his stay application and for recovery proceedings to be kept in abeyance until a decision is made on the stay application. The petitioner relied on the urgency of the matter and the potential for recovery action. Revenue's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel appeared for the revenue. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded for the revenue in the judgment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
None explicitly mentioned in the provided text, though the context relates to the Income Tax Act, 1961.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 16TH POUSHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 264 OF 2023 PETITIONER: KELATHPARAMBIL UMMDER MUHAMMED SHAREEF AGED 36 YEARS KELATH PARAMBIL HOUSE, KARAKKAD, KONDURKARA PO OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679303 BY ADV ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SAKTHANTHAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE , JAWAHARLAL STADIUM, DELHI, PIN - 110003 OTHER PRESENT: ADV. JOSE JOSEPH (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P. (C) No. 264 of 2023 ..2.. JUDGMENT Dated this the 6th day of January, 2023 Petitioner suffered Ext.P1 order of assessment for the assessment year 2021-2022 under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the 2nd respondent along with Ext.P3 application for stay. Petitioner apprehend
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Hira Films PVT. LTD. vs. M/S. Prasad Film Labs (Mumbai) Private LimitedBombay · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Jung Bahadur Singh, Through Its Proprietor, Jang Bahadur Singh vs. The Union Of INDIA, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of RevenueJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026
- Jharkhand Contractors Association Thro Its President- Pramod Kumar vs. Bharat Coking Coal LTD. Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing DirectorJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Isc Processors Private Limited vs. Superintendent,Range-Iv, Burrabazar Div, CGST And Cx, Kolkata (N) Commissionerate And AnrCalcutta · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Raashi Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 13 Oct 2026
