JOSE CHACKO vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/3409/2020HC KeralaKLHC01009689202007 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, per Justice S.V. Bhatti, found a prima facie case for issuing necessary directions to the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)). The Court was satisfied that the writ petition could be disposed of based on the limited prayer and grounds presented. The Court directed the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the stay application (Ext.P3) 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 amounts determined in the orders under appeal for ten weeks from the date of the judgment.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jose Chacko, filed an appeal (Ext.P2) against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. He also filed a stay petition (Ext.P3) along with the appeal. The petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala through a writ petition (WP(C).No.3409 OF 2020(A)) seeking a direction to the appellate authority (2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to expeditiously consider and dispose of the stay petition. The petitioner argued that mere pendency of an appeal does not grant a stay and that delay in deciding the stay petition could lead to recovery proceedings, rendering the appeal ineffective. The assessing officer's actions could make the statutory appeal academic or infructuous.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the appellate authority to expeditiously consider and dispose of the stay petition filed by the assessee pending appeal? (Question of procedure and administrative efficiency) Assessee's contentions: - Mere filing of an appeal or pendency of an appeal does not automatically grant a stay. - Delay in disposing of the stay petition can lead to recovery proceedings by the assessing officer. - Such recovery proceedings, if successful, would render the statutory appeal either academic or ineffective. - The law mandates expeditious disposal of delay and stay petitions to protect the interest of the appellant pending appeal. Revenue's contentions: - The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

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 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 18TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.3409 OF 2020(A) PETITIONER: JOSE CHACKO AGED 56 YEARS DELTA WOOD PANELS,DELTA BUILDING,IRINGOLE.P.O, PERUMBAVOOR,ERNAKULAM-683548. BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SMT.NISHA JOHN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1,ALUVA RANGE,R.S.ROAD, ALUVA-683101. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), 28/243,'POORNIMA',PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-682036. OTHER PRESENT: SC JOS WINSON FOR CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.3409 OF 2020(A) 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 7 th day of February, 2020 The petitioner filed appeal in Ext.P2 aggrieved by the orders of assessment in Ext.P1 made under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner has filed appeal with Ext.P3 stay petition. The petitioner prays for appropriate direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 stay petition expeditiously. 2. The case of petitioner is that either the mere filing of appeal or mere pendency of appeal does not amount to granting stay by the appellate authority. The delay in considering and disposing of Ext.P3 stay petition results in the assessing officer taking steps for recovering the tax amount which is under challenge in Ext.P2 appeal petition. 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 orders on delay petition and stay petition are passed expeditiously. Hence the writ petition. WP(C).No.3409 OF 2020(A) 3 3. Perused Exts.P1 assessment order, P2 appeal and P3 stay petition. Prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to 2nd respondent to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition respectively. 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/2nd respondent considers and disposes of Ext.P3 stay application 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 amounts determined in the orders under appeal for ten weeks from today. S.V.BHATTI Dxy JUDGE

WP(C).No.3409 OF 2020(A) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.12.2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY-2017-18 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE & COMPUTATION OF INCOME. EXHIBIT P2OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL E-FILED ON 14.01.2020 FOR AY-2017-18 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 09.01.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2017- 18.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →