THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), vs. SHRI.N.K.ASHRAF

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1677/2009HC KeralaKLHC01026438200904 October 2018Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider the stay petition filed by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Until such consideration, all recovery proceedings against the petitioner, pursuant to the ex-parte assessment order (Ext.P1), shall be deferred. The court acknowledged that the appeal filed is a statutory appeal and emphasized the need for timely consideration of the stay application. No specific finding was made on the merits of the assessment order itself, as the focus was on the procedural aspect of recovery pending appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Thaliath Jacob Jose, an assessee, is challenging an ex-parte assessment order dated December 29, 2023, issued under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2015-16. This order was passed by the Assessment Unit, National E-Assessment Center, New Delhi. The petitioner has filed an appeal under Section 246A of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center, New Delhi, and a stay petition. The petitioner's grievance is that recovery proceedings are being initiated for the demand raised in the assessment order while the appeal is pending.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the ex-parte assessment order should be deferred during the pendency of the statutory appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the procedural fairness and the impact of an ongoing appeal on recovery actions). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that recovery steps are being taken for the amount demanded in the assessment order while the statutory appeal is pending before the appellate authority. The petitioner seeks a stay on these recovery proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents appeared before the court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 19229 OF 2024 PETITIONER/S: THALIATH JACOB JOSE AGED 57 YEARS S/O JACOB VI/5 THALIATH EXPORTS, SYNAGOGUE LANE, JEW TOWN, KOCHI, KERALA, PIN – 682 002. BY ADV DIVYA RAVINDRAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTER, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER., PIN - 110001 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTER (NFAC), NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 BY ADVS. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM P.R.AJITH KUMAR(K/000708/1998), STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO.19229 OF 2024 : 2 : JUDGMENT

The petitioner is an assessee before the Income tax department. Against Ext.P1 ex-parte assessment order under Section 147 r/w Section 144 B of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2015-16, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has also preferred Ext.P3 stay petition. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that during the pendency of Ext.P2 appeal steps are being taken for realization of the amount provided by Ext.P1 assessment order. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

Since Ext.P2 is a statutory appeal, there will be a

WP(C) NO.19229 OF 2024 : 3 : direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 stay petition within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time, all recovery proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be deferred. Sd/- MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SRJ

WP(C) NO.19229 OF 2024 : 4 : APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19229/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1 ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 147 R.W.S 144B OF THE ACT DATED 23.02.2024 FOR AY 2015-16 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 21.3.2024 FILED AGAINST THE EXT P1 ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2015-16 IN FORM 35 IS PRODUCED ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY 2015-16 DATED 27.04.2024 FILED AGAINST THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED ALONG WITH EXT P1 ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CASE OF GEETH KOKKATTU PAUL VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, IN W.P(C ) NO. 10641 OF 2024 DATED 15.03.2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →