NENCO GAS SERVICE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1942 WP(C).No.4585 OF 2021(W) PETITIONER/S: M/S NENCO GAS SERVICE, 15/519 AND 520, NENCO GAS SERVICE, MANNANCHERRY, ALAPUZHA-688 538, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SHRI. ARUN RAJ PILLAI BY ADVS. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF SRI.M.H.ASIF ALI SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, AYAKAR BHAVAN, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOLLAM-691 001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), 28/243, “POORNIMA”, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-682 036. SC,IT- SRI. JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.4585 OF 2021 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 23rd day of February 2021 Heard both sides as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has waived service and accepted the notice. 2. Petitioner has challenged the order passed on his stay application by The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the 2nd respondent herein. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order rejecting the stay petition is suffering from total non application of mind in as much as it is not disclosing any reason for rejection of request for stay to the assessment order. As against this, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents drew my attention to paragraph 4 of the impugned order and submits that the said paragraph gives reason for the rejection. 3. I have considered the submissions so advanced and perused the relevant exhibits. Paragraph 4 of the WP(C).No.4585 OF 2021 3 impugned order rejecting the stay application reads thus: “4. The submissions made are carefully considered. The orders of the Assessing Officer are perused. The Assessing Officer has passed a speaking order regarding the additions made. There is no judicial precedent squarely applicable to the appellant's case, in respect of the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The appellant has not made out a satisfactory case for grant of stay.” 4. It is trite that the reasons are heart and soul of the order passed by the quasi judicial authority. Perusal of paragraph 4 which is the only paragraph by which the appellate authority has considered the request for grant of stay, does not disclose any reason to the facts of the case. In a mechanical manner, the request for stay made by the petitioner came to be rejected. 5. It is noted that this Court by judgment in W.P. WP(C).No.4585 OF 2021 4 (C).No.5756/2020, had directed the 2nd respondent authority to consider and dispose of the stay application, Ext.P3, as early as possible and preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, and till then, the respondents were directed not to take coercive steps for recovery of the amount determined in the order under the appeal, for ten weeks. That is how the impugned order came to be passed by the 2nd respondent. The same cannot be sustained as it is devoid of any reasons for rejecting the request for