M/S. OBERON TRADING CORPORATION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/1877/2013HC KeralaKLHC01045075201318 January 20135 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition by directing the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to pass appropriate orders on the stay petition (Ext.P3) in accordance with law, at the earliest, and at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The demand, if any, pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) for the assessment year 2005-06, was ordered to be kept in abeyance until such time as the stay petition is decided. The court did not decide the merits of the assessment itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the demand notice pending appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Oberon Trading Corporation, is aggrieved by an assessment order dated December 28, 2011, passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 1(2), Trivandrum, under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2005-06. The petitioner has filed an appeal (Ext.P2) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and an interlocutory application for stay (Ext.P3). The present writ petition challenges a notice (Ext.P4) issued by the ITO demanding satisfaction of the assessed amount. The petitioner seeks relief from this demand pending the disposal of their appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the demand notice issued by the Income Tax Officer for satisfaction of the assessment order is maintainable when an appeal and stay petition are pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the demand notice is premature and oppressive, as they have already invoked the appellate remedy and sought a stay of the demand. They relied on the principle that recovery proceedings should be kept in abeyance when a substantial appeal is pending. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, was heard. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded in the judgment for the revenue's position on this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/28TH POUSHA 1934 WP(C).No. 1877 of 2013 (H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S. OBERON TRADING CORPORATION, THE ARCADE,KILIPPALAM,KARAMANA, TRIVANDRUM,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER M.M.ASIF. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR, SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ, SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH, SRI. SREEJITH S. NAIR. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2),TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), TRIVANDRUM-695 001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Prv.

W.P.(C). NO.1877/2013-H: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD. 28/12/2011. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 21/01/2013 ISSUED BY THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c) No.1877 OF 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of January, 2013 JUDGMENT Being aggrieved of the assessment made by the first respondent under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Income Tax Act , vide Ext.P1, in respect of the assessment year 2005-06, the petitioner has already filed Ext.P2 appeal, accompanied by Ext.P3 interlocutory application for stay before the second respondent. 2. The grievance is in respect of Ext.P4 notice issued by the first respondent demanding the amount to be satisfied, which is under challenge and hence the writ petition. 3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel as well. 4. After hearing both the sides, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3, in accordance with law, at the earliest, at any rate within 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The demand, if any pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order in respect of the assessment year

W.P.(C)No.1877/2013 2 2005-06 shall be kept in abeyance till such time. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

sv.

W.P.(C)No.1877/2013 2

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →