AJAYAKUMAR VELUPILLAI V. THE UNION OF INDIA

WA/1886/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Ajayakumar Velupillai, the appellant, who challenged the recovery steps initiated by the Income Tax Department following an assessment order (Ext.P2) for the assessment year 2018-2019. The appellant had filed an appeal (Ext.P3) and a stay petition (Ext.P4) against the assessment order, along with an application for condonation of delay. The primary concern was the initiation of recovery proceedings before the stay application could be considered. The Single Judge of the High Court directed the respondents to consider the stay application but did not stay the recovery proceedings, leading to this appeal. The Division Bench found it necessary to protect the appellant from recovery actions pending the decision on the stay application or the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 687688 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: DIVYA RAVINDRAN
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Condonation of delay; Income Tax; Recovery proceedings; Stay Application; Writ Appeal
• Section: 143(3)

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 TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 9TH KARTHIKA, 1945 WA NO. 1886 OF 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.10.2023 IN WP(C) 34653/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WP(C): AJAYAKUMAR VELUPILLAI AGED 60 YEARS 1 THALAM, KURAKKANI, VARKALA P.O., VARKALA-, PIN – 695141 BY ADV DIVYA RAVINDRAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE), NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695003 3 HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110003 4 ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (PRESENTLY ASSESSMENT UNIT) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, ROOM NO. 401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110003 :2: W .A.No.1886 of 2023 BY ADV.SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: :3: W .A.No.1886 of 2023 JUDGMENT Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. The petitioner in WP(C).No.34653 of 2023 is the appellant herein aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.10.2023 in the Writ Petition. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows: The appellant had impugned Ext.P2 assessment order before this Court in the Writ Petition when confronted with recovery steps for recovery of the amounts confirmed against him by the assessment order. It was the case of the appellant that against Ext.P2 assessment order he has preferred Ext.P3 appeal and Ext.P4 stay petition along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal for the assessment year 2018-2019 under the Income Tax Act. The apprehension of the appellant was that even before consideration of the stay application there would be recovery steps initiated by the respondents for recovery of the amounts confirmed against the :4: W .A.No.1886 of 2023 appellant by Ext.P2 assessment order. 3. The learned Single Judge who considered the matter directed the respondents to consider and pass orders on the delay condonation application/stay application if it was not possible to finally hear the appeal itself expeditiously. The learned Single Judge, however, did not grant a stay of recovery proceedings pending disposal of the delay condonation application/stay application by the respondents. It is for this limited relief that the appellant is before us through the present appeal. 4. We have heard Smt.Divya Ravindran, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing counsel for the Income Tax Department. 5. In our view, since the learned Single Judge had relegated the appellant to the alternate remedy before the statutory authority it was incumbent upon the learned Judge to protect the appellant from recovery proceedings pending disposal of the applications 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 delay condonation application/stay :5: W .A.No.1886 of 2023 application or appeal itself whichever is earlier by the appellate authority, the recovery proceedings against the appellant for recovery of the amounts confirmed against him by Ext.P2 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance. Save for this limited modification, the rest of the directions in the impugned judgment are not interfered with. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE mns "