K.I.SUNNY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/29690/2014HC KeralaKLHC01075309201411 November 2014Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's Ext.P3 direction petition in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, 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. The petitioner is to provide a copy of the judgment and the writ petition to the second respondent for further action. The writ petition is disposed of with these directions. No specific finding was made on the merits of the assessment order itself, as the focus was on the procedural aspect of recovery.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, K.I. Sunny, is aggrieved by an assessment order dated February 24, 2014, passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Thrissur. He filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) V, Kochi, on March 25, 2014, along with a petition for a direction to stay recovery proceedings. The petitioner's grievance is that recovery steps are being pursued despite the pendency of his appeal. The writ petition seeks to intercept these recovery proceedings. The petitioner has also produced receipts dated March 27, 2014, and June 24, 2014, indicating payment of taxes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondents can proceed with recovery proceedings without considering the pending appeal and direction petition filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the procedural fairness and the Income Tax Act). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that recovery proceedings should be kept in abeyance until his appeal and direction petition are considered by the appellate authority. The petitioner relies on the pendency of Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 direction petition. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue's side regarding the recovery proceedings or the pendency of the appeal.

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 TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/20TH KARTHIKA, 1936 WP(C).No. 29690 of 2014 (I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ K.I.SUNNY, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.C.ITTOOP, KUTTAMKULAM HOUSE, ANNA VILLA, KURIJIKKAL LANE, AYYANTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN: 680 003. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.PRIYA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), THRISSUR - 680 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) V, OFFICE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) V KOCHI - 682 018. R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 29690 of 2014 (I) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 24/2/2014. EXHIBIT P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE E APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITOINER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDNET DATED 25/3/2014. EXHIBIT P3: THE TRUE COPY OF DIRECTION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH EXT.P2 EXHIBIT P4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 27/03/2014 ISSUED BY STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, THRISSUR MAIN BRANCH. EXHIBIT P5: THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 24/6/2014 ISSUED BY STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, THRISSUR MAIN BRANCH. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE AK

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------- W.P(C). No. 29690 of 2014 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2014 J U D G M E N T Being aggrieved of Ext.P1 assessment order passed by the first respondent, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal, along with Ext.P3 petition for direction, not to proceed with recovery proceedings, 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 such steps, which hence is sought to be intercepted by this Court.

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, 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 second respondent for further steps. The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. Pn

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →