KOZHIKODE DAYA HOSPITALS PVT. LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/7974/2018HC KeralaKLHC01039564201809 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (second respondent) to decide the stay application (Ext.P3) within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. This decision is to be made without being influenced by any orders passed by competent authorities under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act. Furthermore, the Court ordered that until an order is passed on the stay application, further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be deferred. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, but focused on the procedural aspect of timely disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kozhikode Daya Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. They are aggrieved by an assessment order dated December 19, 2017, for the assessment year 2015-16, passed by the Income Tax Officer (first respondent). The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (second respondent) on January 22, 2018, along with a stay petition on March 2, 2018. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the second respondent in passing an order on the stay application. Proceedings for realization of the amounts demanded in the assessment order have already been initiated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should issue directions for the expeditious disposal of a stay petition filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), considering the initiation of recovery proceedings by the Income Tax Officer? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay in passing orders on the stay petition, coupled with the initiation of recovery proceedings, causes prejudice and hardship. They sought directions for a prompt decision on their stay application. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents appeared, but no specific arguments were detailed in the judgment regarding the revenue's stance on the delay or the stay petition.

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. 7974 of 2018 PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER KOZHIKODE DAYA HOSPITALS PVT. LTD. V/302, 303, SHORNUR ROAD, NEAR VIYYUR BRIDGE, THRISSUR-680022, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, V.K.ABDUL AZEEZ. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD NO.1(2), THRISSUR-680001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR-680001. 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. 7974 of 2018 (V) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 19/12/2017 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 22/1/2018 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 2/3/2018 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 12/2/2018 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.A. TO JUDGE SKS

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.7974 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. Ext.P3 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.P3 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. 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

W.P. (c) No.7974/2018

directing the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P3 application for stay, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. This shall be done untrammelled by the orders, if any, passed by the competent authorities under the Act in exercise of their powers under sub- section (6) of Section 220 of the Act. Needless to say that until orders are passed on Ext.P3 application for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 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) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →