M.S. ST.THOMAS TIMBER INDUSTRIES vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/6968/2016HC KeralaKLHC01054392201624 February 2016Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the 2nd respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) to consider the petitioner's application for condonation of delay (Ext.P7) as expeditiously as possible. If the delay is condoned, the 2nd respondent is then to consider the stay petition (Ext.P6). The entire exercise is to be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that no coercive proceedings shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the intimation under Section 143(1)(a) (Ext.P1) until the aforementioned exercise is completed. The judgment does not decide the merits of the appeal or the rectification application, focusing solely on procedural directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Palode Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Limited, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961, filed an appeal (Ext.P5) before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi (2nd respondent). This appeal was against an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (3rd respondent) in a rectification application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 2017. The rectification application pertained to an intimation under Section 143(1)(a) for the assessment year 2019-20. The appeal was filed along with an application to condone a delay of 1220 days (Ext.P7) and a stay petition (Ext.P6). The petitioner sought expeditious consideration of their appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 2nd respondent should consider the application for condonation of delay (Ext.P7) filed by the petitioner in their statutory appeal (Ext.P5)? (Question of procedure/mixed law and fact). The petitioner argued for expeditious consideration of their appeal, implying a need for the delay to be condoned. The revenue did not record any specific arguments on this point in the judgment. 2. If the delay is condoned, whether the 2nd respondent should consider the stay petition (Ext.P6) filed by the petitioner? (Question of procedure/mixed law and fact). The petitioner sought consideration of their stay petition. The revenue did not record any specific arguments on this point in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 143(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 19892 OF 2024 PETITIONER: PALODE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED PALODE, KARIMANCODEPALODE, KARIMANKODE B.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, INDIA, REPRESENTED BY R.VAIJU KUMAR , SECRETARY, PIN – 695 562.

BY ADVS. ADITYA UNNIKRISHNAN PRIYADARSINI S. BINISHA BABY ANIL D. NAIR (SR.) RESPONDENTS: 1 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE, AYAKAR BHAVAN, BANGALORE, PIN – 560 001. 2 NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE NEW DELHI, PIN – 110 001. 3 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001. 4 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001. BY ADVS. P.G. JAYASHANKAR P.G, STANDING COUNSEL. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM P.R.AJITH KUMAR(K/000708/1998) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C) No. 19892 of 2024 : 2 : JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Society filed Ext.P5 appeal against Ext.P4 order passed by the 3rd respondent in a rectification application filed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 2017, against Ext.P1 intimation under Section 143(1) (a) for the assessment year 2019-20. The said appeal was filed along with Ext.P7 application to condone the delay of 1220 days. The petitioner has also preferred Ext.P6 stay petition. 2. The prayer of the petitioner is for a consideration of Ext.P5 appeal expeditiously.

W.P.(C) No. 19892 of 2024 : 3 : 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 4. Ext.P5 is a statutory appeal. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P7 application for condonation of delay, as expeditiously as possible. If the delay is condoned, the 2nd respondent shall consider Ext.P6 application for stay thereafter. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time, there shall not any coercive proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1. Sd/- MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN SRJ JUDGE

W.P.(C) No. 19892 of 2024 : 4 : APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19892/2024 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF INTIMATION UNDER SEC.143(1) (a) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2019-2020 DATED 29.05.2020. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF 154 PROCEEDINGS FILED BEFORE THE CPC, BANGALORE DATED 18/06/2020. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF RECTIFICATION APPLICATION DATED 09.1.2023. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2023. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF FORM NO.35, ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL DATED 02.11.2023. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF PETITION FOR STAY DATED 02.11.2023. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY DATED 02.11.2023

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →