M/S. C & R HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED V. THE UNION OF INDIA

WP(C)/7690/2018

AI Insights

The case involves M/S. C & R Hotels Private Limited, which is the petitioner, contesting an assessment order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi (the third respondent). The petitioner filed an appeal against this order and simultaneously requested a stay on the realization of the assessed amounts, which was not decided in a timely manner by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (the second respondent). The petitioner sought the High Court's intervention to expedite the decision on the stay application to prevent further actions on the assessment order during the appeal process.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 722329 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: W.P.(C) No. 4382 of 2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH; PAULY MURICKEN; T RAJESH
• Assessee Lawyers: M GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR; P GOPINATH; K JOHN MATHAI; JOSON MANAVALAN; KURYAN THOMAS; PAULOSE ABRAHAM; RAJAKANNAN
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income Tax; Realisation of amounts; Stay Petition
• Section: 226(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 7690 of 2018 PETITIONER M/S. C & R HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED, NO. 18 (CR HOTELS AND RESORTS), NEAR FORT KOCHI BUS TERMINAL, FORT KOCHI P.O., KERALA-682001, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, ROY J. VAYALAT. BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SRI.RAJA KANNAN RESPONDENTS: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE), NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), OFFICE OF CIT (APPEALS), POORNIMA BUILDING, MANORAMA JUNCTION, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682036. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, 405, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682018. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, HDFC BANK, KADAVANTHRA BRANCH, MKS TOWERS, SA ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682020. 5. THE BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK, THRIPUNITHURA BRANCH, THRIPUNITHURA-682301. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX BY SRI.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN,SC,CANARA BAN BY SRI.T.RAJESH, SC, HDFC BANK LTD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7690 of 2018 (I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 07.12.2016 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM (WITHOUT ANNEXURES) DATED 12.01.2017 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT OF E-FILING. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 27.02.2018 FILED IN EXT.P2 APPEAL BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.01.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER S.226(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 TO THE BRANCH MANAGER OF HDFC BANK. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.01.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER S.226(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 TO THE BRANCH MANAGER OF CANARA BANK. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.02.2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO. 4382 OF 2018. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- PA TO JUDGE rsr P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7690 of 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of March, 2018 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an assessee under the Income T ax Act (the Act) on the rolls of the third respondent. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the second respondent. Ext.P3 is the application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2 appeal. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the second respondent in passing orders on Ext.P3 application for stay. It is alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition that proceedings have already been initiated for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 order. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition. W.P.(c).No.7690 of 2018 : 2 : 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P3 application for stay, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say that until orders are passed on Ext.P3 application for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 assessment order shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE rsr "