MOHAMMED IBRAHIM NOOR MOHAMMED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/18297/2021HC KeralaKLHC01048164202108 September 2021Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala directed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, to consider the stay petition filed by the petitioner expeditiously, and at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also clarified that if the Tribunal deems fit, based on its workload, it could even take up and dispose of the appeal itself in the meantime. Furthermore, all proceedings pursuant to the revised assessment order (Ext.P2) were ordered to be kept in abeyance until the Tribunal passes an order on the stay petition as directed. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mohammed Ibrahim Noor Mohammed, is challenging an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (second respondent) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This order revised an earlier assessment finalized by the Income Tax Officer (first respondent) for the assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (third respondent) along with a stay petition. The petitioner contends that despite over a year having passed since filing the appeal, it has not been taken up for consideration. The present writ petition was filed seeking a direction for the disposal of the stay petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should be directed to dispose of the stay petition filed by the petitioner in a time-bound manner, considering the delay in adjudication of the appeal? (Question of procedure and administrative efficiency). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argues that the appeal and stay petition have been pending for over a year without being taken up for consideration, necessitating a judicial intervention to direct the Tribunal to expedite the process. Revenue's Contention: No specific contention is recorded for the revenue in this judgment regarding the delay or the stay petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

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 WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 17TH BHADRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 18297 OF 2021 PETITIONER: MOHAMMED IBRAHIM NOOR MOHAMMED ROYAL VILLA, AKSHAYA NAGAR, KODUVAYUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV.HARISANKAR V. MENON ADV.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD-678001. 2 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, THRISSUR-680001. 3 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, 1ST FLOOR, BLOCK C-1 & C-2, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682037. 4 ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI-110001. W.P.(C) No.18297/21 -:2:- BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.18297/21 -:3:- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.18297 of 2021 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of September, 2021

JUDGMENT First respondent finalised the assessment of the petitioner under the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the year 2015-16 as per Ext.P1. Thereafter, the second respondent suo motu revised the said assessment order in exercise of the powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and rendered Ext.P2 order.

2.

Petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin, memorandum of which is produced as Ext.P3. He has also preferred Ext.P6 stay petition before the Tribunal. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the lapse of more than one year since filing of the appeal, the same has not been taken up for consideration.

3.

Taking note of the circumstances arising in the case, I deem it necessary to direct the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin, to dispose of Ext.P6 stay petition in a time bound manner.

4.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin, to consider Ext.P6 stay petition filed by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is also made clear that if the Tribunal so pleases, based upon its workload, even the appeal itself can be taken up and disposed of in the meantime. All proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 shall be kept in abeyance until an order as directed above is passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE vps

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18297/2021 PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4(a) COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5(a) COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7(a) COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →