AY BROADCAST FOUNDATION MANJADI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1

WP(C)/468/2015HC KeralaKLHC01046308201507 January 2015Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The provided text is an excerpt from a writ petition filed before the High Court of Kerala and does not contain the Tribunal's decision or findings. It only lists the parties involved and the date of hearing. Therefore, what the Tribunal decided, the reasoning, ratio, and operative directions cannot be determined from this text.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, AY Broadcast Foundation, represented by its Managing Director, Rev. Fr. Praison John, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenges an order or action by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Thiruvalla, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Trivandrum. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is also not detailed.

What were the issues?

The provided text does not contain the specific questions the Tribunal had to decide, nor does it detail the arguments presented by the assessee (AY Broadcast Foundation) or the revenue (Income Tax Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)). Therefore, no issues or contentions can be extracted from this judgment excerpt.

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 WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/17TH POUSHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 468 of 2015 (G) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- AY BROADCAST FOUNDATION, BLDG NO.C.5.57(6) 210, MANJADI, THIRUVALLA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR REV.FR.PRAISON JOHN. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SMT.C.S.SULEKHA BEEVI SRI.R.SREEJITH SMT.MANEESHA KUMAR SMT.ROSIE ATHULYA JOSEPH KUM.SOUMYA PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, THIRUVALLA-689101. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM-695003. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PJ WP(C).No. 468 of 2015 (G) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19.12.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.3.2014 SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE POSTING NOTICE DATED 11.7.2014 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.8.2014 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A.Y. 2007-08. EXHIBIT-P7: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9.12.2014 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ................................................. W.P.(C) No.468 of 2015 (G) ............................................... Dated this the 7th day of January, 2015

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order for the assessment year 2006 - 2007, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition before the second respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that even prior to considering the stay petition, Ext.P7 demand notice has been served threatening recovery action. 2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3.On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions :

Considering the fact that an identical issue for the subsequent assessment year has already been allowed by way of remand by the appellate tribunal, in the petitioner's own case, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a W.P.(C) No.468 of 2015 (G) 2 copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. 2.Recovery steps initiated against the petitioner, pursuant to Ext.P7 demand notice, shall be kept in abeyance till orders are passed by the second respondent on Ext.P2 appeal, as directed above, and communicated to the petitioner. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE AMV/07/01/

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →