ABDUL HARIES JABBAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/13551/2025HC KeralaKLHC01029974202503 April 2025Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala directed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), the second respondent, to consider and pass appropriate orders on the stay petition (Ext.P5) as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also ordered that coercive proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P3) shall be kept in abeyance until the stay petition is decided. The Court did not delve into the merits of the assessment order or the stay petition itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of timely disposal. The ratio of this decision is that procedural delays in adjudicating stay petitions before appellate authorities can be addressed by the High Court through writ jurisdiction to ensure timely relief and prevent undue hardship to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Abdul Haries Jabbar, is aggrieved by an assessment order dated December 20, 2023, issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2016-17. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order on January 15, 2024, and simultaneously filed a stay petition on the same date. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction for the expeditious disposal of the pending stay petition by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The petitioner's primary grievance is the delay in the adjudication of the stay application, which prevents a resolution of the tax dispute.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) should be directed to dispose of the pending stay petition (Ext.P5) in a time-bound manner? (Question of procedure) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that an appeal and a stay petition were filed against the assessment order. The petitioner sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of the stay petition by the ITAT. The petitioner did not rely on any specific authorities or precedents in the provided text. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, was heard. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities by the revenue were recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Income Tax Act, 1961

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

WP(C) NO. 13551 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:28470 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 13551 OF 2025 PETITIONER : ABDUL HARIES JABBAR AGED 54 YEARS 4, E BUILTEC GREENS, KUNNATHURMEDU P.O., KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 013 BY ADVS. K.KRISHNA ACHYUTH MENON NIRMAL KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS : 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD INTERNATIONAL TAX, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI, PIN - 682018 2 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 1ST FLOOR, BLOCK C-I & C-II, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, KOCHI , REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN – 682 037 BY SRI.P.G. JAYASHANKAR, SENIOR SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 13551 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:28470 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- W.P.(C).No.13551 of 2025 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2025 JUDGMENT Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order of assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2016-17. Challenging the aforesaid order, an appeal has been preferred as Ext.P4 and a stay petition has also been filed as Ext.P5. The limited relief sought for by the petitioner is for a direction to dispose of the stay petition in a time bound manner. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 stay petition, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till then, coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM

WP(C) NO. 13551 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:28470 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13551/2025 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : Exhibit P1 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 26-03-2024 Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL-2, BENGALURU TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 12-12-2024 Exhibit P3 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DTD. 06-01-2025 Exhibit P4 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. NIL Exhibit P5 COPY OF AFFIDAVIT & STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 22-02-2025

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →