MKD TALUK GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/32814/2023HC KeralaKLHC01072923202313 October 2023Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and decide the stay application (Ext.P3) expeditiously within a period of two months. Furthermore, for a period of two months, recovery proceedings in pursuance to the penalty order (Ext.P1) shall not be carried out against the petitioner. The court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the stay application itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of ensuring a timely decision on the stay application and providing interim relief during that period.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, MKD Taluk Government Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. For the assessment year 2020-2021, the petitioner was assessed under Sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Act. This resulted in an assessed total income of Rs. 29,31,759/-, tax of Rs. 9,11,509/-, and a penalty of Rs. 18,23,178/-. The petitioner filed an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay application (Ext.P3) against the penalty order before the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner sought a direction for a decision on the stay application and a stay on recovery proceedings if no decision was taken.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the respondent appellate authority to decide the petitioner's stay application expeditiously? (Question of procedure) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents should be directed to take a decision on the stay application. Further, if a decision is not taken, recovery proceedings pursuant to the penalty order should be stayed. Revenue's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the writ petition could be disposed of with directions to the appellate authority to consider the petitioner's application in a time-bound manner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 21ST ASWINA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 32814 OF 2023 PETITIONER: MKD TALUK GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., P- 630, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD,PIN - 678582 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, UMA, BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA PARVATHY MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL e-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI PIN- 110001 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, PIN – 110001 OTHER PRESENT: MR.JOSE JOSEPH- SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P(C)32814/2023 2 J U D G M E N T Dated this the 13th day of October, 2023 1. The petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner was assessed for Income Tax under the provisions of Section 147 read with Section 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2020-2021. The total income of the petitioner was assessed at Rs.29,31,759/- and tax at Rs.9,11,509/- and penalty of Rs.18,23,178/- were levied. Against the said penalty order, the petitioner had filed Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay application before the 2nd respondent. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, respondents be directed to take a decision on the stay application. If the decision is not taken, the recovery proceedings in pursuance to Ext.P1 penalty order should not be taken against the petitioner. 3. Sri. Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that this writ petition can be disposed of with directions to the appellate authority to consider the application of the petitioner in a time frame manner. 4. Considering the aforesaid submission, the 2nd respondent is directed to take up the Ext.P3 application for stay and decide the same expeditiously within a period of two months. For a period of two

W.P(C)32814/2023 3 months, recovery proceedings in pursuance to Ext.P1 shall not be carried out against the petitioner. Sd/- Dinesh Kumar Singh, Judge sou.

W.P(C)32814/2023 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32814/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2020-21 DTD. 27-03-2023 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 05-04-2023 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 26-04-2023 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 29879/23 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD.20-09-2023

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →