THALIATH JACOB JOSE vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/19229/2024HC KeralaKLHC01109617202429 May 2024Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider the stay petition filed by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that all recovery proceedings against the petitioner, pursuant to the ex-parte assessment order, shall be deferred until the stay petition is considered. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, but focused on ensuring that the petitioner's right to seek a stay is addressed promptly and that recovery is put on hold in the interim.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Thaliath Jacob Jose, an assessee, is challenging an ex-parte assessment order dated December 29, 2023, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2015-16. The assessment order was issued by the Assessment Unit, National E-Assessment Center, New Delhi. The assessee filed an appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), New Delhi, along with a stay petition. The petitioner's grievance is that recovery proceedings are being initiated for the demand raised in the assessment order while the appeal is pending.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the ex-parte assessment order should be deferred pending the disposal of the statutory appeal filed by the assessee? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that recovery steps are being taken for the amount demanded in the ex-parte assessment order during the pendency of their statutory appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee seeks a stay on these recovery proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents was heard. No specific arguments or contentions for the revenue are detailed in the judgment regarding the deferment of recovery proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 19229 OF 2024 PETITIONER/S: THALIATH JACOB JOSE AGED 57 YEARS S/O JACOB VI/5 THALIATH EXPORTS, SYNAGOGUE LANE, JEW TOWN, KOCHI, KERALA, PIN – 682 002. BY ADV DIVYA RAVINDRAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTER, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER., PIN - 110001 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTER (NFAC), NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 BY ADVS. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM P.R.AJITH KUMAR(K/000708/1998), STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO.19229 OF 2024 : 2 : JUDGMENT

The petitioner is an assessee before the Income tax department. Against Ext.P1 ex-parte assessment order under Section 147 r/w Section 144 B of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2015-16, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has also preferred Ext.P3 stay petition. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that during the pendency of Ext.P2 appeal steps are being taken for realization of the amount provided by Ext.P1 assessment order. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

Since Ext.P2 is a statutory appeal, there will be a

WP(C) NO.19229 OF 2024 : 3 : direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 stay petition within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time, all recovery proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be deferred. Sd/- MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SRJ

WP(C) NO.19229 OF 2024 : 4 : APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19229/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1 ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 147 R.W.S 144B OF THE ACT DATED 23.02.2024 FOR AY 2015-16 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 21.3.2024 FILED AGAINST THE EXT P1 ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2015-16 IN FORM 35 IS PRODUCED ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY 2015-16 DATED 27.04.2024 FILED AGAINST THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED ALONG WITH EXT P1 ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CASE OF GEETH KOKKATTU PAUL VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, IN W.P(C ) NO. 10641 OF 2024 DATED 15.03.2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →