FEBITHA ALI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/6003/2020HC KeralaKLHC01015950202028 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, having perused the relevant documents (Exts. P1 to P5), was satisfied that a case was made out for issuing necessary directions to the second respondent (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) to dispose of the stay petition (Ext.P5) expeditiously. The Court directed the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the stay petition as early as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Additionally, the respondents were directed not to take coercive steps or recover the amount determined in the orders under appeal for ten weeks from the date of the judgment. The Court found the writ petition could be disposed of based on the limited prayer and grounds presented.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Febitha Ali, filed an appeal (Ext.P3) against an order of assessment (Ext.P1) under the Income Tax Act. Along with the appeal, she filed a stay petition (Ext.P5). The petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for the appellate authority (second respondent, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) to consider and dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. The petitioner argued that mere filing of an appeal or its pendency does not grant a stay, and delay in deciding the stay petition could lead to recovery proceedings by the assessing officer, rendering the statutory appeal ineffective. The High Court perused the documents and found a case for issuing directions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to expeditiously consider and dispose of the stay petition filed by the petitioner pending her appeal against the assessment order. (Question of procedure/mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: - The mere filing of an appeal or its pendency does not amount to a stay granted by the appellate authority. - Delay in disposing of the stay petition could result in the assessing officer initiating recovery steps, making the appeal academic or ineffective. - The law mandates expeditious disposal of stay petitions to protect the appellant's interest pending appeal. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondents.

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 S.V.BHATTI FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.6003 OF 2020(A) PETITIONER: FEBITHA ALI AGED 39 YEARS C/O. PREMIER AGRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD, KINASSERY, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.S.JAFFERALI RESPONDENTS: 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, PALAKKAD 678 001. 2 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, 1ST FLOOR, BLOCK C-1, AND C-II, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, COCHIN 682 037. 3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, PALAKKAD 678 001. BY SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.6003 OF 2020(A) 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 28th day of February 2020 The petitioner filed appeal in Ext.P3 aggrieved by the order of assessment in Ext.P1 made under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner has filed the appeal along with Ext.P5 stay petition. The petitioner prays for appropriate direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of Ext.P5 expeditiously. 2. The case of petitioner is that either the mere filing of appeal or pendency of appeal does not amount to granting stay by the appellate authority. The delay in considering and disposing of Ext.P5 stay petition results in the assessing officer taking steps for recovering the tax amount which is under challenge in Ext.P3. The assessing officer, if is successful in his effort the statutory appeal would become either academic or ineffective. It is further contended by the petitioner that in the manner the law provides for protecting the interest of appellant pending appeal, the WP(C).No.6003 OF 2020(A) 3 order on stay petition is passed expeditiously. Hence the writ petition. 3. Perused Exts. P1 to P5. Prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to second respondent to dispose of the stay petition in Ext.P5. Having regard to the limited prayer and the grounds referred to above, this Court is satisfied that the writ petition can be disposed of by this order: (a) The appellate authority/second respondent considers and disposes of Ext.P5 stay petition as early as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of

copy of this judgment. (b) The respondents are directed not to take coercive steps or recover the amount determined in the orders under appeal for ten weeks from today. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE DCS

WP(C).No.6003 OF 2020(A) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11, DATED 12.03.2015 EXHIBIT P2OF THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR THE YEAR 2010-11, THRISSUR DATED 04.07.2019. EXHIBIT P3OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.09.2019. EXHIBIT P4OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 02.01.2020. EXHIBIT P5OF THE STAY PETITION FIELD BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.02.2020. EXHIBIT P5OF THE STAY PETITION FIELD BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.02.2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →