SRI. MALIAKAL VARKEY THOMAS vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/7885/2016HC KeralaKLHC01055309201601 March 2016Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal expeditiously. If the delay is condoned, the stay petition filed by the assessee is also to be taken up for consideration promptly. The entire exercise of considering the delay condonation and the stay petition is to be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Court ordered that no recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) and demand notice (Ext.P2) shall be initiated until the aforementioned exercise is completed. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Menon and Company, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961, is challenging an order of assessment (Ext.P1) for the assessment year 2018-2019, passed by the Income Tax Officer (1st respondent). The assessee filed a statutory appeal (Ext.P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (3rd respondent) under Section 246A of the Act. This appeal was filed with a delay of 169 days, for which a condonation application was submitted. A stay petition (Ext.P4) was also filed. Despite the pending appeal, steps were being taken to enforce the demand notice (Ext.P2) issued pursuant to the assessment order. The petitioner sought intervention from the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) should consider the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal expeditiously, as per the statutory provisions and the principles of natural justice? Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through their counsel, argued that they have filed a statutory appeal and a delay condonation application, and pending the disposal of these, coercive recovery steps should not be taken. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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 TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 19909 OF 2024 PETITIONER: MENON AND COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI.ACHYUTH KUMAR. R AGED 32 YEARS 12/424, COURT ROAD, SULTHANPET, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 001. BY ADVS. K.N.SREEKUMARAN P.J.ANILKUMAR N.SANTHOSHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, AYAKAR BHAVAN NON CORP WARD 1(1 ) ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 014. 2 ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, ROOM NO: 245, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI, PIN – 110 001. 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110 001. SRI. P.R AJITHKUMAR - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.19909 OF 2024 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’). Against Ext.P1 order of assessment for the assessment year 2018-2019 passed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 appeal before the 3rd respondent under Section 246A of the Act. The petitioner has also filed an application to condone the delay of 169 days in filing the appeal. The petitioner has also preferred Ext.P4 stay petition. Pursuant to Ext.P1, Ext.P2 demand notice has been issued. The grievance of the petitioner is that pending the appeal, steps are being taken to enforce Ext.P2. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

WP(C).No.19909 OF 2024 3 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that Ext.P3 is a statutory appeal, there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, as expeditiously as possible. If the delay is condoned, Ext.P4 stay petition shall be taken up for consideration, expeditiously. 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 be any recovery proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. Sd/- MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SPR

WP(C).No.19909 OF 2024 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER’

S EXHIBITS

:- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.02.2023 WITH DIN: ITBA/AST/S/147/2022- 23/1050155127(1) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 27.02.2023 WITH DIN:ITBA/AST/S/156/2022- 23/1050155208(1) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN FORM NO:35 BEARING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NUMBER: 260323250150923 DATED 15.09.2023 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT AGAINST EXT-P1 ORDER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 22.09.2023 FILED ON 22.09.2023 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN SREE DHARMA PARIPALANA YOGAM VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

W.P.(C)16287/2024

DATED 23.04.2024. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →