THAYYIL ANTONY SAJAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/9924/2020HC KeralaKLHC01025359202015 May 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner's application (Ext.P4) can be considered as an application under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act. The court directed the first respondent (Income Tax Officer) to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 within one month from the date of receiving the judgment. Crucially, the court ordered that further recovery pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance until orders are passed on the stay application. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Thayyill Antony Sajan, is challenging an assessment order dated December 26, 2019, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. He has filed an appeal against this order and has already deposited Rs. 1,29,574/- towards the demand. The petitioner also filed an application (Ext.P4) seeking a stay on the recovery of further amounts pending the appeal's disposal. The Income Tax Officer (first respondent) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (second respondent) are the parties involved. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the consideration of his stay application.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the application filed by the petitioner (Ext.P4) can be treated as an application under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act for stay of recovery pending appeal? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that Ext.P4 is a valid application for stay of recovery and seeks a direction for its consideration by the Income Tax Officer. The petitioner relies on the fact that an appeal has been filed and a substantial amount has been paid. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, appeared before the court. No specific arguments are recorded for the revenue regarding the nature of the application or the merits of the stay request, beyond their appearance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 220(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT9916 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE GOPINATH.P. FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MAY, 2020/25TH VAISAKHA, 1942 W.P(C) NO.9924 OF 2020 PETITIONER THAYYIL ANTONY SAJAN S/O ANTONY, HOUSE NO.XII-188 B KOOVAPADAM, MATTANCHERRY, ERNAKULAM – 682002. BY ADVOCATE SRI. A. KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER NON CORP. WARD NO. 2 (5), OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER L. G. TOWERS, P. T. JACOB ROAD, THOPPUMPADY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI – 682005. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEALS), KOCHI – 2, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX (APPEALS), G- 51, PARAPPILLY LANE, GIRI NAGAR, MANORAMA JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM – 682036. R1-2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.05.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C) NO.9924 OF 2020 2 Dated this the 15th day of May, 2020

JUDGMENT The petitioner suffered an order of assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act. He has filed Ext.P2 appeal against Ext.P1 assessment order and has also deposited an amount of Rs.1,29,574/- against the impugned demand. Petitioner states that he has filed Ext.P4 application before the income tax officer seeking a stay of recovery of further amounts pending disposal of the appeal. On a consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that Ext.P4 application can be considered to be an application u/s.220(6) of the Income Tax Act.

2.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jose Joseph learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department.

3.

There will be a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 application treating the same to be an application

W.P(C) NO.9924 OF 2020 3 u/s.220(6) of the Income Tax Act within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Till such time as orders are passed on Ext.P4, further recovery pursuant to Ext.P1 order of assessment shall be kept in abeyance. This Writ Petition stands disposed of as above.

( )

GOPINATH.P, JUDGE pm

W.P(C) NO.9924 OF 2020 4 APPENDIX. PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 –OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 26.12.2019. EXT. P1 (A) –OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DT. 26.12.’19 EXT. P2 –OF THE APPEAL 21.01.2020 FILED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P3 –OF THE CHALAN FOR REMITTANCE OF RS. 1,29,574/- DATED 25.02.2020. EXT. P4 –OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 28.01.2020.

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

More judgments on Section 220(6)

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 220(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →