AFC KURIES PRIVATE LIMITED V. ASSESSMENT UNIT THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI and THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI and THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), THRISSUR

WA/164/2024

AI Insights

AFC Kuries Private Limited, represented by its managing director, Mr. M.K. Sreedharan, appealed against the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala, which did not grant a stay on recovery proceedings initiated against them following an order (Ext.P1) confirming certain tax demands. The appellant had filed an appeal and associated petitions (Ext.P4, Ext.P5, and Ext.P6) with the second respondent, the Appellate Authority, seeking to challenge the Ext.P1 order and delay the recovery actions. The Single Judge had directed the appellate authority to decide on these petitions within two months but did not stay the recovery proceedings. The Division Bench, considering the circumstances, decided to stay the recovery proceedings temporarily until the appellate authority could resolve the pending applications.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 691498 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM; P R KUMAR; JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: N NAIR; ANTONY JONES
• Keywords: Delay condonation; Income Tax; Recovery proceedings; Stay Petition

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 18TH MAGHA, 1945 WA NO. 164 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.1.2024 IN WP(C) 1840/2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: AFC KURIES PRIVATE LIMITED AGED 66 YEARS X/1942, OPPOSITE BSNL OFFICE, POST OFFICE ROAD, THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.M.K. SREEDHARAN, S/O. KUNJAN KUMARAN, RESIDING AT MARAMKALAYIL HOUSE, APOLLO STREET, CHELAKKOTTUKARA, KURIACHIRA P.O., THRISSUR-680006, PIN - 680001 BY ADVS. N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR ANTONY JONES RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 ASSESSMENT UNIT THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 W.A.No.164/2024 -:2:- 3 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), THRISSUR AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SHAKTHANTHAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001 BY ADVS. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM P.R.AJITH KUMAR(K/000708/1998) SC-JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.No.164/2024 -:3:- J U D G M E N T Dated this the 7th day of February, 2024 Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J. The petitioner in WP(C).No. 1840 of 2024 is the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.1.2024 in the Writ Petition. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows: 2. The appellant had impugned Ext.P1 order before this Court in the writ petition when confronted with recovery steps for recovery of the amounts confirmed against it by the order. It was the case of the appellant that against Ext.P1 order, it has preferred Ext.P4 appeal along with Ext. P5 delay condonation petition and Ext.P6 stay petition before the 2nd respondent, the Appellate Authority. In the meantime, coercive steps were taken for realisation of the demands. Therefore, the appellant preferred WP(C) No. 1840 of 2024 before this Court. The learned Single W.A.No.164/2024 -:4:- Judge disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on application for condoning the delay and stay petition within a period of two months. The learned Single Judge, however, did not grant stay of recovery proceedings. 3. We have heard Sri. N. Muraleedharan Nair, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Jose Joseph, the learned Standing counsel for the Income Tax Department. 4. In our view, since the learned Single Judge had relegated the appellant to the alternative remedy before the statutory authority, it was incumbent upon the learned Judge to protect the appellant from recovery proceedings pending disposal of the petitions by the respondent appellate authority. Accordingly, we modify the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge to the limited extent of clarifying that pending disposal of the application for condoning the delay and stay petition, the recovery proceedings against the appellant for recovery of the amounts confirmed against it by Ext.P1 order W.A.No.164/2024 -:5:- shall be kept in abeyance. Save for this limited modification, the rest of the directions in the impugned judgment are not interfered with. The writ appeal is disposed of as above. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp "