C.ABDUL MAHAROOF V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WA/846/2012

AI Insights

The case involves C. Abdul Maharoof, the appellant, who contested the financial conditions imposed by a Single Judge in a writ petition regarding an income tax dispute. The appellant had already remitted Rs. 25 Lakhs as directed previously but faced financial constraints in remitting an additional Rs. 25 Lakhs. The court, considering the circumstances and the amount already paid, reduced the further amount to be deposited to Rs. 10 Lakhs to stay the recovery actions. The appeal also sought to expedite the decision on the underlying tax dispute.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 765980 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: K B KUTTY; FIROZ M
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Coercive Action; Income Tax; International Taxation

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2012/4TH VAISAKHA 1934 WA.No. 846 of 2012 () --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.6516/2012 DATED 15-03-2012 APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: ----------------------- C.ABDUL MAHAROOF, CHEMBAYIL HOUSE, PUTHARIKKAL P.O., PARAPPANGADI, MALAPPURAM 676 303. BY ADVS. DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY (SR.) SRI. FIROZ K.M. RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, KOCHI CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI 682 018. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNALTIONAL TAXATION) CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI 682018. 3. JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI 682018. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), ANNEX BUILDING, VII FLOOR, NO.121, NUGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI 600034. 5. THE COMMISSIONEER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) III, KERA BHAVAN, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM 682018. 6. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PARAPPANGADI BRANCH, NAHASONS BUSINESS COMPLEX, ANJAPPURA, PARAPPANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN. 676 303. NS 2/- WA.No. 846 of 2012 -2- 7. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA , PARAPPANGADI BRANCH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIN. 676303. 8. THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, PARAPPANGADI BRANCH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIN. 676303. R1 TO R5 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, S.C., FOR INCOME TAX R6 BY ADVS. SRI T. SETHUMADHAVAN. SRI. SAJUSH PAUL. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-04-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: NS WA.No. 846 of 2012 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 15.03.2012 IN W.P.C. NO.6516/2012. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF W.P.C. NO.6516/2012. RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL / TRUE COPY / NS P.A. TO JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JJ. ------------------------ W.A. NO. 846 OF 2012 ------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of April, 2012 JUDGMENT Surendra Mohan,J The complaint of the appellant/petitioner is limited to the condition that has been stipulated by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The writ petition has been disposed of with the following directions: “6. However, having regard to the fact that he has already remitted Rs.25 Lakhs on 03/02/2004 and also since according to him the appeal itself has been heard on 17/11/2011, I direct that the coercive action now initiated by attachment for recovery of the balance amount due under Ext.P1 order of assessment be stayed on the petitioner remitting a further amount of Rs.25 Lakhs. It is directed on such remittance, the attachment will stand lifted”. 2. According to the appellant, since he has already remitted an amount of Rs. 25 Lakhs, he is not in a position to raise the balance amount of Rs.25 Lakhs due to financial constraints. The appeal has already been heard in November 2011. Subsequently, the matter appears to have been heard W.A. No. 846 /2012 2 again in April 2012, but no orders have been passed yet. In the above circumstances, according to the appellant, demands have been made for the entire amount that is due as per Ext.P9. Therefore, the appellant seeks the issue of an order staying the demand till the time, the appeal is finally disposed of. 3. Advocate Sri.Jose Joseph, who appears for the Revenue, opposes the contentions of the appellant pointing out that the total demand being of an amount of Rs. 1.30 Crores. The amount that has been directed to be deposited is only reasonable, since it works out to only less than 50% of the total amount. For the above reason, it is contended that there is absolutely no justification for reducing the amount that has been directed to be deposited. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned standing counsel for the Revenue. Having given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions advanced before us, we are of the opinion that a reduction in the amount that has been directed to be deposited can be given. It is sufficient that the appellant is directed to pay a further amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs as a condition for keeping in abeyance W.A. No. 846 /2012 3 all further steps to recover the amounts demanded. 5. In the above circumstances, this writ appeal is disposed of directing that all coercive steps to recover the amount demanded from the appellant shall be kept in abeyance on condition that the appellant pays a further amount of Rs.10 Lakhs towards the disputed amount of income tax within a period of one month. There shall also be a further direction to the 5th respondent to dispose of the appellant's appeal in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. dpk -// TRUE COPY //- PA TO JUDGE. W.A. No. 846 /2012 4 "