ADATHIL PULIYANKANDY RAHMATH, vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(ASSESSMENT),CIRCLE-1,

WP(C)/8668/2019HC KeralaKLHC01022087201921 March 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala directed the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (3rd respondent) to dispose of the stay application (Ext.P4) filed by the petitioner within a period of two months. The Court further ordered that recovery proceedings pursuant to the impugned assessment order shall be deferred until the disposal of the stay application. The Court did not delve into the merits of the 20% deposit demand but provided a procedural remedy by expediting the decision on the stay application. The ratio decidendi is that stay applications pending appeal should be disposed of expeditiously, and recovery can be deferred during this period.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Adathil Puliyankandy Rahmath, being aggrieved by an assessment order under the Income Tax Act, 1961, filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessing authority directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the disputed amount to grant a stay on recovery proceedings pending the appeal. The petitioner subsequently filed a stay application before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. This writ petition was filed before the High Court of Kerala challenging the order of the assessing authority regarding the 20% deposit for stay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in demanding a 20% deposit for granting a stay of recovery proceedings pending appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the demand for a 20% deposit for a stay was arbitrary and sought a direction for the disposal of the stay application. The petitioner relied on the general principles of granting stay pending appeal. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in response to the writ petition. The focus of the judgment is on the procedural direction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

None explicitly mentioned

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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1940 WP(C).No. 8668 of 2019 PETITIONER: ADATHIL PULIYANKANDY RAHMATH, AGED 57 YEARS, SHARARA BUNGALOW, KUYYALI ROAD, THALASSERY, KANNUR 670 101. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR RESPONDENTS: 1 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(ASSESSMENT), CIRCLE-1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANNUR - 670 006. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOZHIKODE - 673 001. 3 PRINCIPAL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SC IT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C)No8668/2019 2

JUDGMENT The Petitioner aggrieved by Ext P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, 1961 filed Ext.P2 appeal before the 2nd respondent. The assessing authority passed an order directing the petitioner to deposit 20% for granting stay in contemplation of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. Challenging the order of the assessing authority, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 stay application before the 3rd respondent. There shall be a direction to the 3rd respondent to dispose Ext.P4 within a period of two months. Till then, recovery proceedings pursuant to the impugned order in appeal shall be deferred. This writ petition is disposed of as above. A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE YKB

WP(C)No8668/2019 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 UNDER SEC 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT EXHIBIT P2OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND UNDER SEC 156 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. EXHIBIT P3OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS AGAINST EXT.P1 ASSESSMENT ORDER. EXHIBIT P4OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL //// PA TO JUDGE YKB

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →