ASHA KRISHNAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3, DIVISION –II

WP(C)/38843/2022HC KeralaKLHC01083949202205 December 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court expressed surprise at the 16-year delay in disposing of the appeal after remand. Considering the circumstances, the Court directed the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - V) or the jurisdictional first Appellate Authority to consider and dispose of appeal No.ITA117/EKM/Dv.II/97-98 expeditiously, within six months from the date of receipt of the judgment. The Court also directed that Ext.P3 and all coercive proceedings against the petitioner for assessment year 1992-93 shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the appeal. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original assessment or appeal, as the writ petition was disposed of on procedural grounds.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Asha Krishnan, is an assessee. For assessment year 1992-93, an assessment order was passed. The petitioner challenged this in appeal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), by order dated 22-05-2006 (Ext.P1), allowed the second appeal in part and remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - V (2nd respondent) for fresh disposal of the first appeal. The petitioner's grievance is that despite the remand in 2006, no orders have been issued by the 2nd respondent. Meanwhile, proceedings (Ext.P3) have been initiated to enforce collection of tax for assessment year 1992-93.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 16 years in disposing of an appeal after remand by the ITAT is justifiable? (Question of fact and law) The petitioner argued that the prolonged delay of 16 years in the disposal of the appeal by the 2nd respondent, despite the remand order from the ITAT in 2006, is unacceptable, especially when coercive proceedings for tax recovery have been initiated. The petitioner seeks a direction for the expeditious disposal of the appeal. The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, did not appear to have raised any specific arguments against the petitioner's plea for expeditious disposal. The judgment notes that the Court was surprised by the delay but does not record specific arguments from the revenue regarding the justification of this delay.

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 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 38843 OF 2022 PETITIONER: ASHA KRISHNAN AGED 62 YEARS 7C, JOMER HAVEN ILLOM ROAD COCHIN 682016 , PIN - 682016 BY ADV PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENTS: 1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3, DIVISION -II C.R. BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD KOCHI 682018, PIN - 682018 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - V POORNIMA BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR KOCHI 682036 , PIN - 682036 3 THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER ROOM NO 304 3RD FLOOR C.R. BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD KOCHI 682018 , PIN - 682018 OTHER PRESENT: SC,SRI.JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 38843 OF 2022 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.38843 of 2022 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of December, 2022

JUDGMENT Petitioner is an assessee under the 1st respondent. For the assessment year, 1992-93 an order of assessment was issued which was challenged in appeal. The appellate Tribunal by Ext.P1 order allowed the second appeal in part and remanded the matter to the 2nd respondent for fresh disposal of the first appeal. Ext.P1 order of the Tribunal is dated 22-05-2006. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the appeal having been remanded as early as in 2006, till date no orders have been issued by the 2nd respondent pursuant to the remand and in the meantime, proceedings have been initiated as per Ext.P3 to enforce collection of tax due for the assessment year 1992-93. 3. I have heard Sri. Premjit Nagendran, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri. Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

Though this Court is surprised that there has occasioned a delay of 16 years in disposing of an appeal after remand, considering the entire circumstances, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent or the juri ictional first Appellate Authority to consider and dispose of WP(C) NO. 38843 OF 2022 3

the appeal No.ITA117/EKM/Dv.II/97-98 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to mention, Ext.P3 and all coercive proceedings against the petitioner for the assessment year 1992-93 shall be kept in abeyance, until a decision is taken as directed in this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJM/7/12/22

WP(C) NO. 38843 OF 2022 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38843/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P-1 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH IN I.T.A.769/COCH/2004 DATED 22.05.2006 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992- 93. Exhibit P-2 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT| DATED 23.05.2018. Exhibit P-3 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 02.11.2022. Exhibit P-4 STATEMENT SHOWING PAYMENTS EFFECTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT TOWARDS DUES FOR THE FOR THE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →