ARUN THOMAS vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/32366/2014HC KeralaKLHC01077984201403 December 2014Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala directed the second respondent (CIT(A)) to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P3(a)) in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The court further ordered that any coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance until such time as the CIT(A) passes an order on the stay petition. The petitioner was directed to furnish a copy of the judgment and the writ petition to the concerned respondent for further action. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. No specific finding was made on the merits of the assessment orders themselves.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri. Arun Thomas, trading as M/s Kannattu Arun Financiers, is aggrieved by assessment orders dated December 31, 2009 (P1) and March 19, 2013 (P2) passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT), Circle-1, Thiruvalla. The latter order was passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner filed an appeal (P3) and a stay petition (P3(a)) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), who is the second respondent. The petitioner's grievance is that despite the pendency of these appellate proceedings, the respondents are initiating coercive steps for recovery. This writ petition (Civil) was filed seeking intervention from the High Court of Kerala.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the coercive steps initiated by the revenue are valid in light of the pending appeal and stay petition before the CIT(A)? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the procedural rights of the assessee and the powers of the revenue). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that coercive steps should not be taken while their appeal and stay petition are pending before the CIT(A). They sought to intercept these actions through the writ petition. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record any specific arguments made by the revenue in response to the writ petition. However, the court heard the learned Government Pleader, indicating their presence and likely representation.

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 WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936 WP(C).No. 32366 of 2014 (U) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : ----------------------- SHRI.ARUN THOMAS, M/S KANNATTU ARUN FINANCIERS, M.C.ROAD, CHENGANNUR-689 121.

BY SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS. SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 648. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AYYAKKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.

R1 & R2 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts

WP(C).NO.32366/2014 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31/12/2009 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. P2 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE DATED 19/03/2013 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT U/S 143(3) r.w.s. 263 OF THE ACT. P3 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 27/03/2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3(A) COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 27/03/2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4 COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 27/03/2013 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ======================== W.P.(C). No. 32366 of 2014 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3 rd day of December, 2014 JUDGMENT Being aggrieved of Exts.P1 and P2 assessment orders passed by the first respondent under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the petitioner has preferred Exts.P3 appeal, along with Ext.P3(a) petition for stay, which are pending consideration before the second respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that, without any regard to the pendency of the above proceedings, the respondents are proceeding with coercive steps, which hence is sought to be intercepted by this Court.

2.

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3(a) petition for stay, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Coercive proceedings, if any, shall be kept in abeyance till such time. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. stu

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →