T.S. AJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WA/2031/2023HC KeralaKLHC01088187202305 December 2023Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the writ appeals, finding no illegality in the impugned judgments of the learned Single Judge. The Court acknowledged that the appeals preferred by the appellant's father against the assessment orders were pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Court noted that the appellant could move stay applications before the Appellate Authority and that no such applications had been filed. The High Court granted the appellant one week to file stay applications before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Court directed the Commissioner to consider and dispose of either the stay applications or the appeals themselves within three weeks of receiving the stay applications, after hearing both sides. The ratio decidendi is that a writ court should not interfere with the procedural directions of the tax authorities when statutory remedies, including the filing of stay applications before the appellate authority, are available and have not been exhausted.

What were the facts?

The appellant, T.S. Aji, is the son of a deceased assessee who had preferred statutory appeals against assessment orders before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The deceased assessee had also filed an application under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to be treated as not in default. The Income Tax Officer (1st respondent) imposed a condition of remitting 20% of the demand for this to be considered. The appellant filed writ petitions challenging this condition after his father's death. The learned Single Judge dismissed these writ petitions. The present writ appeals are filed against the Single Judge's judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the condition imposed by the Income Tax Officer to remit 20% of the demand as a prerequisite for treating the assessee as not in default, while statutory appeals are pending, is legally sustainable? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 220(6) of the IT Act). Assessee's Contention: The appellant argued that the condition imposed was arbitrary and that he should have been granted relief without such a pre-deposit, especially since appeals were pending. The appellant relied on the principle that stay applications can be moved before the Appellate Authority. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its standing counsel, did not explicitly present arguments on the merits of the condition but rather supported the dismissal of the writ petitions by the learned Single Judge. The judgment notes that the appellant had not moved stay applications before the Appellate Authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 220(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WA NO. 2031 OF 2023
WA NO.2036/2023

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 WA NO. 2031 OF 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT WP(C) 33920/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: T.S. AJI AGED 50 YEARS S/O. LATE SUNNY THANDEKKATTU THOMAS, THANDEKKATTIL HOUSE, MEENANGADI P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673591 BY ADV S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO.1, KALPETTA, PIN - 673122 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673001 3 NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE C-BLOCK, SPM CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(NFAC)., PIN - 110001 SC: ADV CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2023, ALONG WITH WA NO.2036/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WA Nos.2031 & 2036/2023 -:2:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023/14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 WA NO. 2036 OF 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT WP(C) 33911/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: T.S.AJI AGED 50 YEARS S/O. LATE SUNNY THANDEKKATTU THOMAS, THANDEKKATTIL HOUSE, MEENANGADI P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673591 BY ADV S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO.1, KALPETTA, WAYANAD, PIN - 673122 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673001 3 NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE C-BLOCK, SPM CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(NFAC), PIN - 110001

WA Nos.2031 & 2036/2023 -:3:- OTHER PRESENT: SC ADV CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2023, ALONG WITH WA NO.2031/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WA Nos.2031 & 2036/2023 -:4:- J U D G M E N T Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J.

In these writ appeals, the appellant is aggrieved by the identical orders passed by the 1st respondent to remit 20% of the demand as a condition for treating him as a person not in default. 2. The appellant's father was an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the IT Act). Aggrieved by the assessment order, the appellant's father preferred statutory appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appellant's father also moved an application u/s 220(6) of the IT Act before the 1st respondent. In response to the said application, the 1st respondent asked the appellant's father to remit 20% of the demand as a condition for treating him as a person not in default. In the meanwhile, the appellant's father died. The appellant filed writ petitions challenging the said condition

WA Nos.2031 & 2036/2023 -:5:- imposed. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. The appellant is before us challenging the judgments in the writ petitions. 3. We have heard Sri.S. Ananthakrishnan, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned standing counsel for the income tax department. As stated already, the appeals preferred by the appellant's father against the assessment orders are pending before the Appellate Authority/the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appellant can very well move stay applications before the Appellate Authority. It appears that the appellant has moved no such stay applications. The learned Single Judge has granted one week's time to the appellant to file the stay applications. We see no illegality in the impugned judgments. Hence, we dismiss the writ appeals. However, if the appellant prefers stay applications before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) within one week from today, he shall consider and dispose of either the stay applications or the appeals itself within a period of three weeks

WA Nos.2031 & 2036/2023 -:6:- after the receipt of the stay applications after hearing both sides. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE Rp

More judgments on Section 220(6)

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 220(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →