N. Ramachandran vs. 1. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,

WP(C)/39505/2022HC KeralaKLHC01085574202208 December 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's application for stay (Ext.P3) in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The Court further directed that until orders are passed on the stay petition, any proceedings for recovery of amounts due under the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance. The Court found the limited nature of the relief sought by the petitioner to be acceptable given the facts and circumstances. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Court granted the procedural relief sought.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, N. Ramachandran, is challenging an order of assessment for the assessment year 2019-20, passed under the Income Tax Act, 1961. He filed an appeal and a stay application before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the second respondent. While the stay application was pending, the petitioner received a notice proposing recovery of amounts due under the assessment order. The petitioner sought a direction for the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the stay petition and for recovery proceedings to be held in abeyance until then.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass orders on the stay petition filed by the petitioner. (Question of procedure) 2. Whether recovery proceedings for amounts due under the assessment order should be kept in abeyance until the stay petition is decided. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that a direction should be issued to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on the stay petition. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that until orders are passed on the stay petition, any proceedings for recovery of amounts due under the assessment order should be kept in abeyance. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the revenue was heard, but it does not specify the revenue's arguments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Income Tax Act, 1961

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 GOPINATH P. THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 39505 OF 2022 PETITIONER/S: N. RAMACHANDRAN AGED 65 YEARS MEKKATHIL VEEDU, THATHAMALA, PERUMKADAVILA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , PIN - 695124 BY ADVS. P.S.SOMAN T.RADHAMONY B.PRABHAKARAN NANCY PRABHAKAR RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AAYKAR BHAVAN,KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I S PRESS ROAD, COCHIN, PIN - 682018 ADV. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 39505 OF 2022 2

JUDGMENT

Petitioner suffered Ext.P1 order of assessment for the assessment year 2019-20 under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P3 application for stay before the 2nd respondent. Pending consideration of Ext.P3 stay petition, petitioner has been served with Ext.P4, proposing to recover amounts due under Ext.P1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a direction may be issued to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 stay petition and till such time as orders are passed on Ext.P3, any proceedings for recovery of amounts due under Ext.P1 may be kept in abeyance.

Heard the learned Standing Counsel also.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the limited nature of relief sought for by the petitioner, this writ petition will stand disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 application for stay, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till such time as WP(C) NO. 39505 OF 2022 3 orders are passed on Ext.P3, any proceedings for recovery of amounts due under Ext.P1 order of assessment shall be kept in abeyance.

The writ petition is disposed of as above. GOPINATH P. JUDGE ajt

WP(C) NO. 39505 OF 2022 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39505/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO. ITBA/AST/S/153A/2021-22/1035953882(1) DATED 28-09-2021ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2019-20. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2019- 20 DATED 26-10-2021 Exhibit P3 EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2019-20 DATED 25-11-2022 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1047595775(1) DATED 23- 11-2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →