MARTIN PUTHUMANA THOMAS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that the petitioner had filed stay petitions (Ext.P10 series) before the third respondent (CIT(A)) after the institution of the writ petition, and these applications were pending. In light of this subsequent development, the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the third respondent (CIT(A)) to pass orders on the pending stay petitions. The Court clarified that these orders should be passed untrammelled by the earlier orders of the ACIT (Ext.P4) and PCIT (Ext.P7). The Court further directed that further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment orders (Ext.P2 series) shall be deferred until orders are passed on the stay petitions by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to pass these orders within two months from the receipt of the judgment.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Martin Puthumana Thomas, an assessee, is challenging assessment orders for Assessment Years (AYs) 2010-11 to 2014-15 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT). He filed statutory appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Subsequently, he sought a stay of demand from the ACIT, which was rejected (Ext.P4). A review of this order was sought from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), who granted a stay on the condition of paying 15% of the disputed demand (Ext.P7). This order of the PCIT is under challenge in the present writ petition. The petitioner has since filed stay petitions before the CIT(A) in his pending appeals.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax granting a conditional stay of demand, when statutory appeals with pending stay applications are before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? Assessee's Contention: The assessee is aggrieved by the conditional stay order (Ext.P7) and seeks appropriate relief. The petitioner has filed stay petitions before the CIT(A) after filing the writ petition. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, appeared before the court. No specific arguments are recorded for the revenue regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the merits of the stay order.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
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 MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 23RD MAGHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 4333 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) MARTIN PUTHUMANA THOMAS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S.PUTHUMANA GOLD HOUSE, MAIN ROAD, PAYYANNUR-670 307. BY ADVS.SRI.S.ARUN RAJ SMT.C.T.SUJA RESPONDENT(S): 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, KANNUR RANGE, KANNUR-670 006. 2. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE -673 001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE -673 001. R BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DG
WP(C).No. 4333 of 2018 (N) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTERS DATED 28.8.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT SEEKING THE REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE AY'S 2010-11 TO 2014-15. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11. EXHIBIT P2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12. EXHIBIT P2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13. EXHIBIT P2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14. EXHIBIT P2(d) TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED ASSESSMENT YEARS 2014-15. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY FIRST APPEALS FILED FOR THE AY 2010-11. EXHIBIT P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY FIRST APPEALS FILED FOR THE AY 2011-12. EXHIBIT P3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY FIRST APPEALS FILED FOR THE AY 2012-13. EXHIBIT P3(c) TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY FIRST APPEALS FILED FOR THE AY 2013-14. EXHIBIT P3(d) TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY FIRST APPEALS FILED FOR THE AY 2014-15. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.2.2017 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING THE STAY PETITION FOR THE AY'S 2010-11 TO 2014-15. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLANS EVIDENCING THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE PETITIONER ON 30.3.2017 AND 13.4.2017. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE
2010-11. EXHIBIT P6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2011-12. EXHIBIT P6(b) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2012-13. EXHIBIT P6(c) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2013-14. EXHIBIT P6(d) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2014-15. EXHIBIT P6A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.6.2017 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2017 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DISPOSING THE STAY PETITIONS FOR THE AY'S 2010-11 TO 2014-15. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2017 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESEE SRI.P.K.VIJAYAN, SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUTERIZED RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE PAYMENTS MADE ON 14.12.2017 BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE AY 2011-12 TO 2014-15. EXHIBIT P10 KOZHIKODE FOR THE AY 2010-11. EXHIBIT P10(a) KOZHIKODE FOR THE AY 2011-12. EXHIBIT P10(b) KOZHIKODE FOR THE AY 2012-113. EXHIBIT P10 (c) KOZHIKODE FOR THE AY 2013-14. EXHIBIT P10 (d) KOZHIKODE FOR THE AY 2014-15. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS-NIL True copy P.A to Judge
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ------------------------------------------------------------------ W.P.C.No.4333 of 2018 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2018 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an asssessee under the Income Tax Act (the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. Aggrieved by Ext.P2 series orders, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 series appeals before the third respondent. After having instituted the appeals, the petitioner moved the first respondent for stay of further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 series orders under sub-section (6) of Section 220 of the Act. Ext.P4 is the order passed by the first respondent in this regard. The petitioner sought a review of Ext.P4 order before the second respondent. The application preferred by the petitioner in this regard has been disposed of by the second respondent in terms of Ext.P7 order granting the stay sought by the petitioner on condition that he shall pay 15% of the disputed demand. Ext.P7 order is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as
WPC.4333/2018
also the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department. 3. It is seen that after the institution of the writ petition, the petitioner preferred Ext.P10 series applications for stay in Ext.P3 series appeals, and the same are pending. In the light of the said subsequent development, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing the third respondent to pass orders on Ext.P10 series applications for stay, untramelled by Exts.P4 and P7 orders. Ordered accordingly. This shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that till orders are passed on Ext.P10 series stay petitions, further proceedings for realization of amounts covered by Ext.P2 series orders shall be deferred. Sd/- (P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE) True copy P.A to Judge DG
More judgments on Section 220(6)
- Ramji Vaish, Allahabad vs ACIT, AllahabadITA 371/ALLD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed9 Jun 2026AY 2011-12
- Vijay Stone Product, Sonebhadra vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…ITA 4/ALLD/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2026AY 2011-12
- Susi Charitable Trust, Khurda vs The Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption)…ITA 582/CTK/2025[2026-27]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2026-27
- Jayant Security and Finance Ltd, Indore vs ACIT Central-2, BhopalITA 91/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
- Jayant Security and Finance Ltd, Indore vs ACIT Central-2, BhopalITA 90/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2025AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Jsw Mg Motor INDIA Private Limited & Anr. vs. Tristar Auto Agencies (Vizag) Private LimitedDelhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Amber Nutrition Private Limited vs. Mr Manish Chandak & Anr.Delhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Kajaria Ceramics Limited vs. Mr Yomesh VijayaDelhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Marico Limited vs. Shree Uday Oil And Food Industries LLPDelhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Laborate Pharmaceuticals INDIA Limited vs. M/S Jmbs Healthcare Through Its PartnersDelhi · 3 Nov 2026