Loading High Court cases…
527 orders · Page 8 of 11
The High Court of Kerala noted that a letter dated 02.06.2022, addressed by the 1st respondent (Income Tax Officer) to the petitioner's Secretary, was placed before the court. This letter stated that the 2nd respondent had already paid Rs.98,140/-. Furthermore, the 1st respondent's office undertook to recover the balance amount as mentioned in the recovery notice dated 22.11.2021, subject to applicable Government rules. In light of this specific undertaking by the 1st respondent, the High Court closed the writ petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the court again if there was any violation of the undertaking. No specific finding was made on the legal obligation under Section 37 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, as the matter was resolved by the undertaking.
The High Court held that the denial of an opportunity for a hearing to the petitioner at the appeal stage constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court reasoned that even if the scheme's provisions did not initially mandate a hearing, the rules of natural justice must be read into the scheme, entitling the petitioner to present its case. Furthermore, the Court noted that the scheme itself was later amended to make granting an opportunity of hearing mandatory if sought. Consequently, the appellate orders for assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, and 2015-2016 were quashed. The appeals filed by the petitioner were restored to the file and directed to be disposed of in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The High Court of Kerala, upon considering the submissions of both the petitioner and the respondents, was of the opinion that the writ petition could be disposed of with a direction. The Court directed the 3rd respondent (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 (stay petition) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that all coercive proceedings against the petitioner in respect of Ext.P1 (assessment order) shall be kept in abeyance until such a decision on the stay petition is taken. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
The High Court of Kerala quashed Exts.P7 order and Ext.P8 notice. The Court directed the competent respondent authority to take a fresh decision after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This decision is to be taken within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. The ratio decidendi is that procedural fairness requires consideration of the assessee's submissions before proceeding with re-assessment, and technical errors should not preclude such consideration. The operative direction is the quashing of the impugned order and notice and a fresh decision-making process.
The High Court of Kerala, while considering the writ petition, found it appropriate to dispose of the petition with a specific direction. The Court directed the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and pass orders on the stay petition (Ext.P3) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that all coercive proceedings against the petitioner, pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1), shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petition. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the stay petition.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court's reasoning was based solely on the petitioner's counsel seeking permission to withdraw. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The court explicitly stated that the dismissal was without prejudice to the petitioner's right to pursue their statutory remedies, meaning they could still approach the appropriate authorities through the prescribed legal channels. No specific issue was decided on merits, and no principle was established for future citation.
The High Court of Kerala did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it directed the Appellate Authority (the 1st respondent, referring to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as the appellate authority) to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) expeditiously. The Court deemed it fit to dispose of the writ petition by directing the appellate authority to consider the pending appeal in a time-bound manner. Furthermore, the Court ordered that no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the disposal of the appeal. The specific finding on the legality of the assessment order or the applicability of Section 80P was left to be decided by the appellate authority.
The High Court held that the writ petition was premature. It agreed with the Revenue's submission that after considering the petitioner's reply, an order under Section 148A(1)(d) along with a notice under Section 148 would be issued. At that stage, the petitioner would have the opportunity to file their income tax return. The Court also noted that the petitioner had been given an opportunity to raise contentions against the Section 148A notice. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to any relief in the present writ petition. The Court did not decide on the merits of the time-barring issue or the sustainability of the initial notice, as it deemed the petition to be filed at an inappropriate stage. The writ petition was accordingly closed.
The High Court did not decide the merits of the assessment order or the appeal. Instead, it noted that the petitioner had already preferred an appeal (Ext.P2) which was pending before the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)). Therefore, the Court deemed it fit to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in a time-bound manner. The Court directed the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 expeditiously. Additionally, the Court ordered that no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order until the disposal of the appeal. The issue of the validity of the assessment order under Section 80P, in light of the Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. judgment, was expressly left undecided by the High Court.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the concerned assessing authority to determine which documents are actually required for completing the assessment. This determination must also consider the petitioner society's entitlement to exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The assessing authority is to complete this exercise within one month of receiving a copy of the judgment. The court further stipulated that the assessment proceedings should only be finalized after this selective document identification process is concluded. The principle established is that faceless assessment procedures should accommodate practical limitations and consider the specific circumstances of assessees, particularly those claiming statutory exemptions, by focusing on essential documentation rather than demanding an exhaustive upload.
The High Court of Kerala held that the Ext.P6 order of penalty was liable to be set aside. The reasoning was that the order had been passed without taking into account the High Court's previous judgment in Ext.P2, which had already set aside the assessment order and the notice for penalty. The Court noted the concession made by the Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department regarding this procedural lapse. Consequently, the Ext.P6 order was set aside. The Income Tax Department was granted the liberty to initiate penalty proceedings afresh in accordance with the law. No other issues were decided, and the writ petition was disposed of on this basis.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing that if the petitioner files a composite reply to Ext.P13 notice on or before June 10, 2022, the competent authority shall take a decision on any jurisdictional issue raised by the petitioner in the reply. This decision must be made after affording the petitioner an opportunity to present his submissions. The authority is directed to proceed with deciding other issues only after resolving the preliminary issue of jurisdiction. The court also noted that the time limit for filing a reply had expired on March 31, 2022, and directed that sufficient time be granted for filing the reply. The principle established is that jurisdictional challenges in benami proceedings can be raised before the authority, and the authority must decide such preliminary issues before proceeding with the substantive matters, with the High Court intervening to ensure this process.
The High Court directed the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass orders on the stay petition (Ext.P3) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Until a decision is taken on the stay petition, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner concerning the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment or the stay petition itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of ensuring the stay petition is considered promptly. The principle is that a taxpayer should not face coercive recovery before their application for a stay of demand is heard and decided.
The High Court of Kerala, while considering the writ petition, acknowledged the submissions of both the petitioner and the respondents. The Court was of the opinion that the writ petition could be disposed of with a specific direction. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), was directed to consider and pass orders on the stay petition (Ext.P3) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Until a decision is taken on the stay petition, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner concerning the assessment order (Ext.P1) were ordered to be kept in abeyance. The Court did not delve into the merits of the assessment order or the appeal.
The High Court held that while there is substantial merit in the revenue's contention that notices sent to registered email IDs on March 25, 2022, should be considered relevant for determining the notice period, no prejudice would be caused to the department by affording the petitioners an opportunity to reply within 7 days. The Court acknowledged the statutory right of the assessees to reply within 7 days of receipt. Consequently, the Ext.P3 orders (presumably the orders initiating reassessment proceedings based on the insufficient reply period) in both cases were set aside. The officer concerned was directed to take a fresh decision after giving the petitioners 7 days to reply to the show cause notice. The petitioners were directed to submit their replies on or before June 7, 2022, and a fresh decision was to be taken thereafter in accordance with law. The principle is that procedural fairness, including adequate time for response, should be upheld even if technical arguments about notice dates exist, provided no prejudice is caused to the revenue.
The High Court held that while there is substantial merit in the revenue's contention that notices sent to registered email IDs on March 25, 2022, should be considered relevant for determining the notice period, no prejudice would be caused to the department by affording the petitioners an opportunity to reply within 7 days. The Court acknowledged the statutory right of the assessees to reply within 7 days of receipt. Consequently, the Ext.P3 orders (presumably the orders initiating reassessment proceedings based on the insufficient reply period) in both cases were set aside. The officer concerned was directed to take a fresh decision after giving the petitioners 7 days to reply to the show cause notice. The petitioners were directed to submit their replies on or before June 7, 2022, and a fresh decision was to be taken thereafter in accordance with law. The principle is that procedural fairness, including adequate time for response, should be upheld even if technical arguments about notice dates exist, provided no prejudice is caused to the revenue.
The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, presided over by Justice Gopinath P., considered the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6 (South Indian Bank). The counsel stated that the entire loan account had been settled and that respondents 5 and 6 were withdrawing the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. In light of this submission, the Court held that the Writ Petition (Civil) would stand closed. The reasoning is based on the voluntary withdrawal of the SARFAESI proceedings by the concerned parties due to the settlement of the loan account, rendering the petition's purpose moot. No specific issue was decided on merits; the closure is procedural. The operative direction is to close the writ petition.
The High Court of Kerala, considering the submissions of both the petitioner and the respondents, decided to dispose of the writ petition with a specific direction. The court directed the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and pass orders on the stay petition (Ext.P3) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the court ordered that all coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petition. The principle here is that appellate authorities should consider stay petitions expeditiously to prevent undue hardship to assessees, and High Courts can direct such expeditious disposal.
The High Court held that Ext.P15, the final assessment order, was liable to be set aside. The reasoning was that the petitioner was not issued with a show cause notice prior to the issuance of Ext.P15, which is contrary to the statutory provisions of Section 144B of the Income Tax Act. The Court quashed Ext.P15, making it clear that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the matter. The authorities were permitted to issue a fresh assessment order after following the prescribed procedure under Section 144B. The ratio decidendi is that compliance with the procedural safeguards, specifically the issuance of a show cause notice before passing a final assessment order under the faceless assessment scheme, is mandatory.
The High Court of Kerala did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it disposed of the writ petition by directing the Appellate Authority (3rd respondent) to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's pending appeal (Ext.P2) expeditiously. The Court also granted interim relief, stating that no coercive steps would be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the appeal is disposed of. The primary issue concerning the applicability of the Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. judgment and the validity of the Section 80P deduction was left to be decided by the appellate authority. No specific finding was made on the assessment order's correctness or the revenue's grounds for rejection.
The High Court of Kerala, while considering the submissions from both sides, was of the opinion that the writ petition itself could be disposed of with a direction. The Court directed the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and pass orders on the stay petition (Ext.P3) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that all coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petition. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the appeal.
The High Court of Kerala did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it noted that the petitioner had already preferred an appeal (Ext.P2) before the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) and that this appeal was pending. Therefore, the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in a time-bound manner. The 3rd respondent was directed to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal expeditiously, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. All coercive proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) were to be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the appeal. No finding was made on the substantive issues raised by the petitioner.
The High Court of Kerala held that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to pursue his stay petition before the Appellate Authority. Recognizing the procedural difficulty encountered by the petitioner in uploading the stay petition, the Court directed that if the petitioner files a stay petition within 10 days from the date of the order before the second respondent (Income Tax Officer), it shall be forwarded to the first respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)). The first respondent is then mandated to consider the stay petition expeditiously, within one month of its receipt. Furthermore, the Court ordered that all coercive proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petition. The issue of the merits of the stay petition itself was not decided.
The High Court acknowledged the petitioner's request for an expeditious disposal of the stay petition. The Court found merit in directing an expeditious consideration of the stay application. Accordingly, the Court directed the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and dispose of the stay application (Ext.P2(a)) as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that all coercive proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance until the stay petition is disposed of. No specific finding was made on the merits of the assessment or the stay application itself, as the writ petition was disposed of on procedural grounds.
The High Court held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for the periods from 2012-13 to 2014-15 was not legally sustainable. The Court relied on its previous decision in M/s. Sarala Memorial Hospital v. Union of India and Another, which held that the amendment to Section 200A, enabling the levy of late fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective only from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the jurisdiction to levy late fees under Section 234E arose only from that date. Regarding the respondents' contention about delay, the Court found it unmeritorious because the petitioner's challenge was based on a total lack of jurisdiction. In cases of a complete lack of jurisdiction, delay cannot be a ground to deny relief. The cited precedents were distinguished as they did not involve a total lack of jurisdiction. Consequently, the intimations demanding late fees for the period from 2012-13 until June 1, 2015, were quashed.
The High Court directed the second respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) to dispose of the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) within an outer period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The disposal is to be done after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Crucially, the Court clarified that the appeal should be disposed of without insisting on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded. Furthermore, all recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) were ordered to be kept in abeyance until a decision was taken on the appeal. The writ petition was allowed with these directions.
The High Court observed that the petitioner had already preferred an appeal (Ext.P2) which was pending before the third respondent (the Appellate Authority). Therefore, the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in a time-bound manner. The Court directed the third respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 expeditiously, at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that no coercive steps shall be initiated pursuant to the rectification order (Ext.P1) and demand notice (Ext.P3) until the disposal of the appeal. The issue regarding the assessing officer's failure to consider the Supreme Court judgment was implicitly addressed by directing the appellate authority to consider the appeal, which would include this ground.
The High Court directed the 2nd respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi) to dispose of the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) within an outer period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court clarified that the appeal should be disposed of without insisting on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded. Furthermore, all recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) were ordered to be kept in abeyance until a decision was taken on the appeal. The Court did not decide on the merits of the Section 80P claim itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of ensuring timely disposal of the appeal and interim relief from coercive steps.
The High Court of Kerala, while acknowledging the pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal expeditiously. The Court directed the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to dispose of the appeal within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Until the appeal is decided, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) were ordered to be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide on the merits of the Section 80P deduction claim or the applicability of the Supreme Court judgment.
The High Court held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not applicable for periods prior to June 1, 2015. The Court relied on its previous decision in M/s.Sarala Memorial Hospital v. Union of India and Another, which held that the amendment to Section 200A, enabling the levy of such fees, took effect only from June 1, 2015, and was prospective. Therefore, the jurisdiction to levy late fee under Section 234E arises only from June 1, 2015, and not earlier. Regarding the revenue's contention of delay, the Court found it unconvincing because the challenge was based on a total lack of jurisdiction. In cases of alleged lack of jurisdiction, delay cannot be a ground to deny relief. The Court also noted that it had previously quashed similar intimations in another case (W.P.(C)No.1259/2022) where the petitioner was similarly placed. Consequently, the intimations demanding late fee under Section 234E for the period from 2012-13 till June 1, 2015, were quashed as being bereft of authority and legally unsustainable.
The High Court of Kerala directed the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, to consider the stay petition filed by the petitioner (Ext.P4) expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that all coercive proceedings against the petitioner, pursuant to the penalty order (Ext.P1), shall be kept in abeyance until the stay petition is considered. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. The substantive appeal itself was not decided on merits.
The High Court of Kerala did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it acknowledged that the petitioner had already preferred an appeal (Ext.P2) against the assessment order (Ext.P1) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and that this appeal was pending. Therefore, the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in a time-bound manner. The 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) was directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Until the appeal is decided, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order were ordered to be kept in abeyance.
The High Court, while acknowledging the existence of statutory remedies, found it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a specific direction. The court directed the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P3) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the court ordered that all coercive proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petition. The court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the appeal itself.
The High Court of Kerala, in a writ petition, did not decide the merits of the assessment order or the appeal. Instead, the Court deemed it fit to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Appellate Authority (3rd respondent) to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner. The Court ordered the 3rd respondent to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the judgment, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court directed that all coercive proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance until the appeal is decided. The principle derived is that when an appeal is pending and a writ petition is filed raising grievances that could be addressed in appeal, the High Court may direct the appellate authority to decide the appeal expeditiously while staying coercive steps.
The High Court of Kerala did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it noted that the petitioner had already filed an appeal (Ext.P2) before the 3rd respondent (Appellate Authority) and that this appeal was pending. Therefore, the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Appellate Authority to consider the pending appeal in a time-bound manner. The 3rd respondent was directed to dispose of Ext.P2 expeditiously, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Coercive proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) were to be kept in abeyance until the appeal was decided.
The High Court held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not legally sustainable for the period prior to June 1, 2015. The Court relied on its previous decision in M/s. Sarala Memorial Hospital v. Union of India, which held that Section 234E would take effect only from June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was made effective only from that date. The Court found that for the period prior to June 1, 2015, the respondents had no jurisdiction or authority to impose the late fee. The Court also noted that the Appellate Authority had not considered the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in M/s. Sarala Memorial Hospital's case, rendering Ext.P8 and Ext.P9 perverse. Consequently, the Court quashed the intimations (Ext.P1 to Ext.P7) to the extent they demanded late fee under Section 234E for the period from 2012-13 till June 1, 2015. No issue was left undecided.
The High Court directed the Appellate Authority (3rd respondent) to dispose of the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) expeditiously, within six months from the date of receipt of the judgment, after granting a hearing. The court observed that Assessing Officers repeatedly ignore Supreme Court judgments like the one in Mavilayi's case, instead relying on overruled High Court judgments, which is detrimental to the rule of law. While acknowledging the Standing Counsel's submissions regarding departmental awareness and corrective measures, the court emphasized the need to preserve the majesty of law. Consequently, the court imposed a token cost of Rs. 1,000/- on the respondents, payable to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, as a reminder to the department to abide by the rule of law. Coercive proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order were kept in abeyance until the appeal is decided.
The High Court of Kerala noted that the petitioner had already preferred an appeal against the assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and that this appeal was pending. Consequently, the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in a time-bound manner. The Court directed the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass appropriate orders on the appeal (Ext.P2) expeditiously, within a period of six months. Furthermore, the Court ordered that no coercive steps would be initiated pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the disposal of the appeal. The issue of whether the AO erred in rejecting the deduction under Section 80P was not decided on merits by the High Court, but was remitted to the appellate authority.
The High Court of Kerala directed the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, to consider Ext.P4 stay petition expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also ordered that all coercive proceedings against the petitioner, pursuant to the penalty order (Ext.P1), shall be kept in abeyance until the stay petition is considered. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. The Court did not decide on the merits of the penalty order itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of expediting the appellate process.
The High Court of Kerala, while acknowledging the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) pending before the second respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi), deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal expeditiously. The Court directed the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that no coercive steps shall be initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order until the disposal of the appeal. The specific merits of the Section 80P deduction claim or the applicability of the Supreme Court judgment were not decided by the High Court in this writ petition.
The High Court of Kerala noted that the petitioner had already preferred an appeal (Ext.P2) before the second respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi) against the assessment order (Ext.P1). Since the appeal was pending, the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in a time-bound manner. The Court directed the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Additionally, the Court ordered that no coercive steps shall be initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order until the disposal of the appeal. The Court did not decide on the merits of the Section 80P deduction claim or the applicability of the Supreme Court judgment.
The High Court held that while the time granted to the petitioner to file objections was very short and bordered on denying an effective opportunity, the petitioner had utilized the limited time granted to file his objections with supporting documents. The Court noted that the objections raised by the petitioner were dealt with on merits by the assessing officer in the assessment order (Ext.P9). Therefore, the Court found no infringement of the principles of natural justice that would warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court observed a "disturbing pattern" of the Income Tax department granting minimal time for replies to show-cause notices, emphasizing that reasonable time is mandated by natural justice. However, in this specific case, since the petitioner utilized the opportunity and filed a reply, the Court concluded that the petitioner's remedy, if any, lies with the Appellate Authority. The period spent by the petitioner pursuing the writ petition was excluded for calculating the limitation period for preferring a statutory appeal. The writ petition was dismissed.
The High Court of Kerala, while acknowledging the pendency of the appeal (Ext.P2) before the second respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi), deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in a time-bound manner. The Court directed the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that no coercive steps shall be initiated pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the disposal of the appeal. The issue of whether the assessing officer erred in rejecting the deduction under Section 80P was not decided on merits by the High Court, as it was remitted to the appellate authority.
The High Court of Kerala, while acknowledging the pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioner (Ext.P2) before the appellate authority (2nd respondent), deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the appellate authority to consider the appeal expeditiously. The court directed the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the court ordered that no coercive steps would be initiated pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the disposal of the appeal. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the Section 80P deduction claim itself, leaving that to the appellate authority.
The High Court held that the respondents acted illegally and with material irregularity in retaining the petitioner's original title documents. The Court noted that the Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department fairly conceded that there is no provision under the Act to retain documents of title as security for any tax liability. Furthermore, the Court found that Section 131(3) of the Act mandates obtaining approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner or other specified officers for retaining impounded documents beyond 15 days, and there was no evidence that such approval was obtained. Citing the principle laid down in Udaya Sounds v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, the Court stated that the department has an obligation to communicate such orders to the assessee. Therefore, the respondents cannot retain the documents under any circumstances. The Court directed the respondents to return the original Sale Deed No. 3561/2008 to the petitioner within 30 days of receiving the judgment.
The High Court held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not legally sustainable for the period prior to June 1, 2015. The Court relied on its earlier decision in M/s. Sarala Memorial Hospital v. Union of India, which held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, enabling the computation of fee under Section 234E, took effect only from June 1, 2015. Consequently, for periods before this date, the authorities lacked the jurisdiction to impose such late fees. The Court found the appellate orders (Ext.P6 to Ext.P9) to be perverse as they failed to consider the binding judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in M/s. Sarala Memorial Hospital's case. The Court quashed the intimations (Ext.P1 to Ext.P4) to the extent they demanded late fee under Section 234E for the period from 2012-13 till June 1, 2015. The operative direction was to quash the impugned intimations for the specified period.
The High Court found the findings of the lower authorities regarding the expenses unsustainable due to lack of details and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Tribunal's order of remand concerning Section 80IB was confirmed, leaving the scope of deduction open for future consideration.
The High Court of Kerala, considering the submissions of both parties, opined that the writ petition could be disposed of with a direction. The Court directed the second respondent, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, to consider and pass orders on the stay petitions (Exts.P5 and P6) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Until a decision is taken on the stay petitions, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner were ordered to be kept in abeyance. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of this direction. No specific finding was made on the merits of the assessment orders or the appeals.
The High Court of Kerala, in its writ jurisdiction, admitted the writ petition. The court acknowledged the limited prayer made by the petitioner, which was to direct the 4th respondent to consider and dispose of the pending stay petitions (Ext.P7 and P13). The court found merit in this limited prayer and issued a specific direction. The 4th respondent was ordered to consider and pass orders on the stay petitions within a period of three months from the date of the order. As an interim measure, the court also directed that coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax demand be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the aforementioned stay petitions. The judgment did not delve into the merits of the tax dispute or the grounds for the stay petitions, focusing solely on procedural relief.
The High Court admitted the writ petition and disposed of it with specific directions. The Court directed the respondents to hear and dispose of the appeal (Ext.P2) at the earliest. Furthermore, the Court directed the respondents to take up the stay petition (Ext.P3) and hear and dispose of it within three months. As an interim measure, coercive steps for recovery were stayed until the disposal of the stay petition. The Court's decision was based on the limited prayer made by the petitioner for expeditious disposal of his pending matters.