ABDUL MAJEED PERINGAMANNA AYDROSE V. THE ADDITIONAL / JOINT/ DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX / INCOME TAX OFFICER

WA/588/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Abdul Majeed, the appellant, who contested an assessment order under the Income Tax Act. Initially, he filed an appeal and a stay petition with the National Faceless Appeal Centre, which were not addressed promptly, leading him to file a writ petition. The single judge directed the appeal to be considered but did not stay the recovery proceedings. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant filed a writ appeal. The division bench, after hearing the arguments, decided to keep the recovery proceedings in abeyance until the appeal is resolved and directed the appropriate authority to expedite the decision on the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 751384 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISANKAR MENON; MEERA MENON
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Income Tax; Recovery proceedings; Stay Petition
• Section: P3; P1; P2

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1944 WA NO. 588 OF 2022 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 15615/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ABDUL MAJEED PERINGAMANNA AYDROSE KOLLIYIL HOUSE, KUNNUKARA, VAYALKKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 524. BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ADDITIONAL / JOINT/ DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX / INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELSS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI- 110 001. 2 NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE DELHI - 110 001, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) POORNIMA BUILDINGS, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-36. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA No. 588 of 2022 2 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & MOHAMMED NIAS C.P ., JJ ------------------------------------------------------------------ WA No. 588 of 2022 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2022 JUDGMENT A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. This writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 10.05.2022 of a learned single Judge in WP(C)No.15615 of 2022. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:- The writ petitioner, who was served with Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act preferred Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P3 stay petition before the second respondent-National faceless Appeal Centre. The writ petition was preferred before this Court seeking a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on the appeal/stay petition and to keep in abeyance the recovery steps initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order in the meanwhile. 2. The learned single Judge, who considered the matter disposed the writ petition by directing the second respondent to WA No. 588 of 2022 3 consider and dispose of Ext.P2 appeal at the earliest, leaving liberty to the said respondents to take up Ext.P3 stay petition also and pass orders on the same within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The learned single Judge did not however stay the recovery proceedings in the meanwhile. It is aggrieved by the judgment to the extent is does not grant the stay of recovery of the confirmed amounts pending disposal of the appeal/stay petition that the appellant is now before us. 3. We heard Sri.Harishankar V .Menon, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned standing counsel for the Income tax. 4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made across the Bar, we deem it appropriate to allow this appeal by directing the appropriate authority to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal preferred by the appellant against Ext.P1 assessment order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The second respondent shall issue appropriate directions to the appropriate authority identified by it for the purposes of complying with the aforesaid direction of this Court. 5. Needless to say, till such time orders are passed by the WA No. 588 of 2022 4 appropriate authority and the orders communicated to the appellant, the recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the appellant by Ext.P1 assessment order shall kept in abeyance. Writ appeal is disposed as above. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS C.P ., JUDGE dlk 25.5.22 "