SUBRAMANYAN HARIKUMAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/7307/2022HC KeralaKLHC01016003202207 March 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC) to consider and pass orders on the stay petition (Ext.P4) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Until a decision is taken on the stay petition, all coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 penalty order under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are to be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of with these directions. The court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the penalty order itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the stay petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Subramanyan Harikumar, is aggrieved by an order of assessment for the assessment year 2017-18, marked as Ext.P1. He has filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), which is produced as Ext.P3. Concurrently, a petition for stay of proceedings under Ext.P1 was filed as Ext.P4. The petitioner apprehends coercive recovery actions before his stay petition is adjudicated. Consequently, he has filed this writ petition seeking intervention. The respondents include the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 and TPS, Palakkad, and the National E-Assessment Center.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a stay of coercive proceedings pending the disposal of his appeal against the assessment order. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that coercive proceedings are being apprehended before his stay petition is considered by the appellate authority. He seeks a direction to prevent such actions until a decision on the stay petition is made. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the stay petition or the apprehension of coercive proceedings. The court proceeded to pass a direction based on the submissions of the petitioner and the respondents generally.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D

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 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 7307 OF 2022 PETITIONER: SUBRAMANYAN HARIKUMAR 29/58-4, 42/509 MANIS, M.G ROAD, KARNAKI NAGAR, PALAKKAD KERALA 678 012 BY ADVS. DIVYA RAVINDRAN LINCY GLANCY RETHIN R. RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 AND TPS, PALAKKAD, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, CHURCH ROAD, PALAKKAD 678 014 2 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO. 401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL STADIUM, NEW DELHI 110 003 3 THE COMMISSIOENR OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTER (NFAC) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, JAWARHARLAL STADIUM, NEW DELHI 110 003 OTHER PRESENT: ADV. JOSE JOSEPH -S.C THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 7307 OF 2022 -:2:- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 7307 of 2022 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of March, 2022

JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment relating to assessment year 2017-18, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P3. A petition for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment order has also been filed as Ext.P4. Petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings to be effected even before the petition for stay is considered.

Hence this writ petition.

2.

Having considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, I am of the opinion that this writ petition itself can be disposed of with a direction.

3.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 stay

WP(C) NO. 7307 OF 2022 petition, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such a decision is taken, all coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 penalty order under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act 1961, shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJM

WP(C) NO. 7307 OF 2022

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7307/2022 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS : Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 10-10-2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 19- 01-2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 16-02-2022 E-FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 13- 02-2022, E-FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS : NIL AJM //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

More judgments on Section 271D

All 1,725 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →