NADARAJAN NEELAKANDAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/25364/2020HC KeralaKLHC01062981202019 November 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to conduct a re-hearing on the stay application (Ext.P3) within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of the judgment, with notice to the petitioner. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent was ordered to pass an order on the stay application within a further period of two weeks. Additionally, the 2nd respondent was directed to consider the petitioner's request for an early disposal of the appeal (Ext.P2), taking into account his status as an 80-year-old senior citizen. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay application, but rather directed the procedural steps for their disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Nadarajan Neelakandan, an 80-year-old senior citizen, filed an appeal (Ext.P2) on January 18, 2019, before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent) against an assessment order and demand notice (Ext.P1) dated December 21, 2018, issued by the Income Tax Officer (1st respondent) for assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner also filed a stay application (Ext.P3) on October 9, 2019. Despite the stay application being heard on October 31, 2019, no order had been passed by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to hear and dispose of both the appeal and the stay petition within a specified time.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), should be directed to pass an order on the stay application (Ext.P3) filed by the petitioner, considering the delay in disposal. Assessee's contention: The petitioner, a senior citizen, seeks an early disposal of his appeal and stay application, highlighting the delay in passing orders on the stay petition despite it being heard. The petitioner relies on the urgency due to his age and the pendency of the appeal since January 18, 2019. Revenue's contention: The Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department submitted that the appeal is ripe for hearing, but due to a large number of pending appeals, the 2nd respondent requires more time for final disposal. However, the 2nd respondent shall pass orders on the stay application within a time limit to be fixed by the Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 246A

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 ANIL K.NARENDRAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1942 WP(C).No.25364 OF 2020(U) PETITIONER : NADARAJAN NEELAKANDAN AGED 80 YEARS S/O.NEELAKANDAN,GURUVIHAR, KUNNATHUMALA,VADASSERIKONAM, POST-695143, CHEMMARUTHY VILLAGE,VARKALA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2),KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695003. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695003. R BY SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM - STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2- WP(C).No.25364 OF 2020(U)

JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is an assesee on the file of the 1st respondent, has filed Ext.P2 appeal dated 18.01.2019 before the 2nd respondent Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) invoking the provisions under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, feeling aggrieved by Ext.P1 demand notice and assessment order dated 21.12.2018 issued by the 1st respondent for the assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner has also filed Ext.P3 application for stay dated 09.10.2019 in Ext.P2 appeal. The grievance of the petitioner is that though Ext.P3 application for stay was heard on 31.10.2019, based on Ext.P4 notice dated 18.10.2019, the 2nd respondent is yet to pass orders on that application. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the petitioner is a senior citizen aged 80 years and that, Ext.P2 appeal, which is one filed on 18.01.2019, requires an early disposal. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to hear the petitioner and the 1st respondent and -3- WP(C).No.25364 OF 2020(U) dispose of Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department.

3.

The learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department would submit that though Ext.P2 appeal filed by the petitioner is ripe for hearing, due to pendency of large number of appeals, the 2nd respondent requires further time for final disposal of that appeal. The 2nd respondent shall pass orders on Ext.P3 application for stay within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent to conduct a re-hearing on Ext.P3 application for stay, with notice to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, and pass orders on that application, within a further period of two

-4- WP(C).No.25364 OF 2020(U) weeks. The 2nd respondent shall also consider the request of the petitioner for early disposal of Ext.P2 appeal, considering the fact that he is a senior citizen aged 80 years. ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE AV/20/11

-5- WP(C).No.25364 OF 2020(U)

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 21.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 09.10.2019 FILED IN EXHIBIT P2 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETER NO.ITBA/COM/F/17/2019-20/1019062994(1) DATED 18.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE URGENT HEARING PETITION DATED 14.03.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE URGENT HEARING PETITION DATED 17.09.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →