M/S. PONMUNDAM PROPERTIES PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/41712/2018HC KeralaKLHC01096935201820 December 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it recorded the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the revenue that the Commissioner of Income Tax will consider the petitioner's application (Ext.P6) expeditiously. Based on this submission, the Court disposed of the writ petition. Therefore, no finding was reached on the legality of the Assistant Commissioner's demand or the merits of the stay application. The operative direction was to dispose of the application before the Commissioner promptly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Ponmundam Properties Pvt Ltd, filed a statutory appeal and a stay petition for assessment year 2014-15. While the appeal was pending, the petitioner filed an application under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, through an order (Ext.P5), disposed of this application by requiring the petitioner to pay 20% of the demand as a pre-condition for a stay. The petitioner then challenged this order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Ext.P6) and filed the present writ petition seeking its early disposal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax was justified in demanding 20% of the tax as a pre-condition for considering the stay application under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner implicitly challenges the pre-condition set by the Assistant Commissioner, as evidenced by their filing an application before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) seeking to challenge the Ext.P5 order. The petitioner's primary objective in filing the writ petition is to seek an early disposal of their application before the Commissioner. Revenue's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the revenue informed the Court that the Commissioner of Income Tax will consider the petitioner's application (Ext.P6) expeditiously.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 220(6)

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 DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY ,THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 WP(C).No. 41712 of 2018 PETITIONER/S: M/S. PONMUNDAM PROPERTIES PVT LTD 11/13, PUTHUKUDI, PONMUNDAM P.O, MALAPPURAM -676 106 BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SHRI.GOKULRAJ L. SMT. ARYA ANIL SMT. NILOOFAR O. NIZAM SREEJITH.R.NAIR RESPONDENT/S: 1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE (II), KOZHIKODE-673 001 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS III) ERNAKULAM-682 036 OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2- W.P.(C). No. 41712 of 2018

JUDGMENT For the assessment years 2014-15, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal along with a stay petition. Pending that appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax has, however, disposed of the petitioner's Ext.P4 application through the Ext.P5 order. That authority required the petitioner to pay 20% as a pre- condition to have the proceedings stayed. Then, the petitioner challenged the Ext.P5 before the Commissioner of Income Tax, through Ext.P6 application. Seeking its early disposal, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

2.

In response to the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel, the learned Standing Counsel informs the Court that the Commissioner of Income Tax will consider the Ext.P6 application expeditiously. Recording that submission, I dispose of the writ petition. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE das

-3- W.P.(C). No. 41712 of 2018 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30/12/2017 EXHIBIT P2OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3OF STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4OF THE APPLICATION UNDER SEC. 220(6) FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5OF THE ORDER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DAATED 02.02.2018 EXHIBIT P6OF LETTER DATED 12.2.2018

More judgments on Section 220(6)

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 220(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →