SABIRA M.A vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/14025/2020HC KeralaKLHC01035581202013 July 2020Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court condoned the delay of 75 days in filing the appeal, considering the explanation provided by the assessee. The Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass reasoned orders on the stay petition (Ext.P4) within four months of receiving a copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court ordered that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the assessment order (Ext.P1) be kept in abeyance until the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passes orders on the stay petition and communicates them to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish copies of the writ petition and the judgment to the appellate authority. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sabira M.A., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging recovery steps initiated by the Income Tax Officer (respondent 1) for amounts confirmed in an assessment order (Ext.P1). The petitioner had filed an appeal (Ext.P2) along with a delay condonation application (Ext.P3) and a stay petition (Ext.P4) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (respondent 2). The petitioner contended that recovery actions were being pursued despite the pending stay petition. The delay in filing the appeal was stated to be 75 days.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 75 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be condoned, considering the explanation provided by the assessee? (Question of fact and procedure, turning on the discretion of the appellate authority under the Income Tax Act). 2. Whether recovery steps for the disputed tax demand should be stayed pending the disposal of the stay petition by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the powers of the appellate authority and the principles of natural justice under the Income Tax Act). Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that recovery steps were being taken prematurely while the stay petition was still pending before the appellate authority. The petitioner relied on the explanation for the 75-day delay in filing the appeal. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department was heard, but their specific contentions are not detailed.

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 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1942 WP(C).No.14025 OF 2020 PETITIONER/S: SABIRA M.A AGED 45 YEARS THOLIRIKKAPPALIYALIL HOUSE, CHERPULASSRY ROAD, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD-679 306 BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, PALAKKAD-678 104 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THRISSUR-680 001 OTHER PRESENT: SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.14025 OF 2020 2

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal together with Ext.P3 delay condonation application and Ext.P4 stay petition before the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that recovery steps have been taken by the respondent against the petitioner for recovery of the amounts confirmed by Ext.P1 assessment order even while the stay petition is pending consideration before the 2nd respondent.

2.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find that in as much as the delay occasioned is only 75 days, the delay can be condoned taking note of the explanation furnished by the assessee. The writ petition is disposed with the following directions:

1.

The 2nd respondent shall consider and pass reasoned orders on Ext.P4 stay petition within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner..

2.

Recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner.

WP(C).No.14025 OF 2020 3

3.

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the 2nd respondent, for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE WP(C).No.14025 OF 2020 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →