ASHA RAJAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/7337/2019HC KeralaKLHC01018788201912 March 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to dispose of the stay application and the delay condonation application within a period of two months. Until such disposal, recovery proceedings based on the impugned assessment order are to be deferred. Furthermore, if any order of freezing of the petitioner's bank account has been passed, the bank is directed not to freeze the account until the aforementioned period. The court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the reasons for the delay, focusing solely on directing the disposal of the interlocutory applications.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Asha Rajan, proprietor of Trinity Indane Services, is challenging an assessment order (Ext.P2) passed by the Income Tax Officer (respondent 1). She filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (respondent 2), along with an application for condonation of delay (Ext.P4) and a stay application (Ext.P5). The State Bank of India (respondent 3) is also a party. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking directions for the disposal of her applications.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) should be directed to dispose of the delay condonation application and the stay application filed by the petitioner? (Question of procedure/direction) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner seeks a direction for the expeditious disposal of her pending applications before the appellate authority. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the petitioner regarding the merits of the delay or stay. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue (respondent 1) or the standing counsel representing the Income Tax Department. The State Bank of India (respondent 3) is a party but no arguments are recorded for them.

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 TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1940 WP(C).No.7337 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: ASHA RAJAN, AGED 57 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, TRINITY INDANE SERVICES, OPP. KRISHNA TEMPLE, VELLANGALLORE P.O, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR-680622. BY ADV.SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL RESPONDENT/S: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, AAYKAR BHAVAN, S.T. NAGAR, THRISSUR-680001. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, S.T. NAGAR, THRISSUR-680001. 3 STATE BANK OF INDIA, IRINJALAKUDA TOWN BRANCH, IRINJALAKUDA-680121, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. BY SRI. JAICE JACOB, STANDING COUNSEL BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.7337/2019 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner, as against Ext.P2 assessment order, filed Ext.P3 appeal under the Income Tax Act before the second respondent. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also filed Ext.P4 delay condonation application and Ext.P5 stay application before the second respondent. In the light of the above, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to dispose the stay application and the delay condonation application within a period of two months. Till then, recovery proceedings based on the impugned order in the appeal shall be deferred. If any order of freezing has been passed, the Bank shall not freeze the account in the light of the above order till such period as mentioned above. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE ln

WP(C).No.7337/2019 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN IN FORM NO. ITR-4 DATED 26.09.2013 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.11.2018 PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 U/S. 143(3)/147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF ORDER DATED 11.01.2019 U/S. 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 IN RECTIFYING MISTAKE IN EXT P2 ORDER, EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL INFORM NO.35 DATED 29.01.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST EXT P2 READ WITH EXT P2(A) ORDER COMPLETED BY 1ST RESPONDENT, WHICH WAS ACKNOWLEDGED ON 31.01.2019. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF PETITION FOR CONDONING DELAY 24 DAYS IN FILING EXT P3 APPEAL, CALCULATED WITH EXT P2 ORDER SUBMITTED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 29.01.2019 SUBMITTED ALONG WITH EXT P3 APPEAL BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL. //// P.A.TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →