MATHEW K. CHERIAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/8016/2018HC KeralaKLHC01039606201809 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) III to decide the application for condonation of delay within two months from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment. It was further stipulated that if the delay is condoned, the Commissioner should also pass orders on the stay application within the same stipulated period. The Court also ordered that further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment order shall be deferred until orders are passed on the condonation of delay or the stay application. No specific finding was made on the merits of the assessment order or the appeal itself, as the writ petition focused on procedural delay.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri Mathew K. Cherian, an assessee, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging the delay in the disposal of his appeal and stay petition by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) III. The petitioner had filed an appeal against an assessment order dated December 31, 2017, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The appeal was filed with a delay of four days, for which a condonation petition was submitted. A stay petition was also filed. The petitioner alleged that recovery proceedings for the disputed amount had commenced, prompting the writ petition seeking appropriate directions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should issue directions for the expeditious disposal of the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, and consequently, the stay application, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) III? (Question of procedure and administrative efficiency). The petitioner argued that the delay in passing orders on the condonation and stay applications was causing prejudice, especially as recovery proceedings had been initiated. The revenue, represented by its Standing Counsel, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's plea for expeditious disposal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 220(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 8016 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) SHRI.MATHEW K. CHERIAN S/O. CHERIAN, AGED 62 YEARS, KOSAMATTAM HOUSE, MANGANAM P.O, KOTTAYAM 686 018 BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM 686 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) III 28/243,"POORNIMA", NEAR MANORAMA JUNCTION, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI 682 036 R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 8016 of 2018 (B) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31-12-2017 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2015-16 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 5-2-2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 7-2-2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2(B) TRUE COPY OF PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILLING THE APPEAL DATED 5-2-2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U/S. 220(6) DATED 19-02-2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.A. TO JUDGE SKS

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.8016 of 2018 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th day of March, 2018 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act (the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the second respondent. There was a delay of four days in instituting the appeal. The petitioner, therefore, preferred Ext.P2(b) application for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. Ext.P2(a) is the application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2 appeal. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the second respondent in passing orders on Ext.P2(b) application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and Ext.P2(a) application for stay. It is alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition that proceedings have already been initiated for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 order. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition.

W.P. (c) No.8016/18

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to take a decision on the application for condonation of delay within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say that if the delay in preferring the appeals is condoned, orders shall be passed on the applications for stay preferred by the petitioner also within the time stipulated. Needless also to say that until orders are passed on the application for condonation of delay or the application for stay, as the case may be, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by assessment order shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. SKS

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 →