ABDUL JALEEL MANKARATHODI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/39218/2022HC KeralaKLHC01084863202208 December 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition by directing the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's stay application (Ext.P3) in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, 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 until orders are passed on the stay application, any proceedings for recovery of amounts due under the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance. The Court found that the limited nature of the relief sought by the petitioner warranted this direction.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Abdul Jaleel Mankaranthodi, is challenging an order of assessment for the assessment year 2011-12. He filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the second respondent, along with a stay application. While the stay application was pending, the petitioner received an intimation letter regarding the recovery of amounts due under the assessment order. The petitioner sought a direction for the Commissioner to consider and pass orders on the stay application and to keep recovery proceedings in abeyance until a decision was made on the stay application.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) should be directed to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's stay application (Ext.P3) expeditiously? 2. Whether recovery proceedings for amounts due under the assessment order (Ext.P1) should be kept in abeyance until the stay application is decided? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that recovery proceedings should be halted pending the decision on his stay application, which was filed along with his appeal. The petitioner sought a direction to the appellate authority to dispose of the stay petition promptly. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the revenue was heard, but their specific contentions are not detailed.

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 GOPINATH P. THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 39218 OF 2022 PETITIONER/S: ABDUL JALEEL MANKARATHODI THACHAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MYLAPPURAM, DOWNHILL ERANADU TALUK, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676519 BY ADVS. K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR RAJATH R NATH HARIMA HARIHARAN G.REMADEVI RESPONDENT/S: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WARD- 3(2)(2), ROOM NO. 1625,16TH FLOOR, AIR INDIA BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI, PIN - 400021 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, PIN - 110001 3 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, TARIFF BAZAR, TOWN HALL ROAD, TIRUR, PIN - 676101 ADV. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 39218 OF 2022 2

JUDGMENT

Petitioner suffered Ext.P1 order of assessment for the assessment year 2011-12 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. Pending consideration of the stay petition, petitioner has been served with Ext.P4 intimation letter regarding recovery of amounts due under Ext.P1. Petitioner prays that a direction may be issued to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 and till such time as orders are passed on Ext.P3, any proceedings for recovery of amounts due under Ext.P1 may be kept in abeyance.

Heard the learned Standing Counsel also.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the limited nature of relief sought for by the petitioner, this writ petition will stand disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 application for stay, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till such time as orders are passed on Ext.P3, any proceedings for recovery of WP(C) NO. 39218 OF 2022 3 amounts due under Ext.P1 order of assessment shall be kept in abeyance.

The writ petition is disposed of as above. GOPINATH P. JUDGE ajt

WP(C) NO. 39218 OF 2022 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39218/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit.P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24-12-2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 Exhibit.P2 COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 16-01-2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST EXT.P1. Exhibit.P3 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 24-11-2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN EXT. P2 APPEAL Exhibit.P4 COPY OF THE INTIMATION LETTER DATED 22-11- 2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →