AJITH.K.MANGATT V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/27343/2012

AI Insights

The case involves Ajith K. Mangatt, the petitioner, who contested an assessment order under the Income Tax Act. The assessment order (Ext.P3) required him to pay a certain tax, which he appealed against (Ext.P4). The appellate authority (2nd respondent) was directed by a previous court judgment (Ext.P15) to dispose of the appeal, provided the petitioner complied with the order to pay 50% of the assessed tax (Ext.P5). The petitioner filed a stay petition (Ext.P16) against the recovery of the tax, which was not considered due to non-compliance with the payment condition. The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing adherence to the conditions of the previous judgment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699450 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: W.P.(C).20882/12
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: T MADHU
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Income Tax; Stay Petition
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/28TH KARTHIKA 1934 WP(C).No. 27343 of 2012 (P) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- AJITH.K.MANGATT, AGED 43 YEARS RESIDING AT 4/184, MANGATT HOUSE, OCHANTHURTHU, KOCHI 8 BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(5) ERNAKULAM KOCHI 682002 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS 2) ERNAKULAM KOCHI 682016 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 27343 of 2012 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-12010 DATED 23-06-2009 EXT.P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 31-10-20122 OF THE CO,MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II ERNAKULAM EXT.P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ASESSMENT ORDER DATED 13-12-2011 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 10-01-2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RODER DATED 15-02-2012 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 21-02-2012 EXT.P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAYER COUNTER FOIL DATED 21-03-2012 EXT.P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAYER COUNDER FOIL DATED 2-04-2012 EXT.P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAYER COUNTER FOIL DATED 21-05-2012 EXT.P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAYER COUNTER FOIL DATED 25-06-2012 EXT.P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAYER COUNTER FOIL DATED 25-07-2012 EXT.P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAYER COUNTER FOIL DATED 25-08-2012 EXT.13 THE TRUE COP[Y OF THE TAX PAYER COUNTER FOIL DATED 25.9.2012 EXT.14 THE TRUE COP[Y OF THE TAX PAYER COUNTER FOIL DATED 22.10.2012 EXT.P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10-09-2012 IN WPC NO 20882/2012 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 09-09-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN EXT.P4 APPEAL /true copy/ sd/- P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ........................................ W.P.(C).27343/2012 .............................................. Dated this the 19th day of November, 2012 JUDGMENT The prayer sought in the writ petition is to direct disposal of Ext.P4 appeal pending consideration of the 2nd respondent within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. There is also a prayer for the disposal of Ext.P16 stay petition. 2. Ext.P3 is an assessment order passed against the petitioner under the Income Tax Act. Against that order, petitioner filed Ext.P4 appeal. In Ext.P5 order passed by the assessing authority, petitioner was directed to pay 50% of the tax due in instalments as specified therein. After Ext.P5 order was passed, petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.(C).20882/12. In that writ petition petitioner sought an expeditious disposal of the appeal. This Court by Ext.P15 judgment W.P.(C).27343/12 2 rendered on 10th September 2012, directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal, subject to the petitioner complying with Ext.P5 order referred to above. It appears that in the meanwhile, petitioner had filed Ext.P16 stay petition seeking stay of recovery of the tax under Ext.P3. It is thereafter, that this writ petition is filed. 3. A reading of Ext.P15 judgment shows that this Court has directed consideration of the appeal subject to the petitioner complying with Ext.P5 order requiring him to pay 50% of the tax due under Ext.P3. Therefore, question of directing consideration of the stay petition does not arise. Insofar as the disposal of the appeal that is sought for is concerned, there again, matter is governed by Ext.P15 judgment. Petitioner has no case that as at present, he has complied with W.P.(C).27343/12 3 Ext.P5. If that be so, having regard to the directions contained in Ext.P15 judgment, at this stage, this Court cannot direct disposal of the appeal also. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mrcs /true copy/ sd/- P.A. To Judge "