M/S. C & R HOTELS PVT. LTD. V. THE UNION OF INDIA

WP(C)/4382/2018

AI Insights

The case involves M/S. C & R Hotels Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner, who contested an assessment order under the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2013-14. The self-assessment was revised, leading to the filing of a rectification application and subsequently an appeal against the revised assessment order. The appeal was filed with a delay of 83 days, for which a condonation application was also filed. The petitioner sought judicial intervention to prevent the realization of the assessed amounts until the delay in filing the appeal was condoned and a stay was granted.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 678159 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH; PAULY MURICKEN; T RAJESH
• Assessee Lawyers: M NAMBIAR; P GOPINATH; K MATHAI; JOSON MANAVALAN; KURYAN THOMAS; PAULOSE ABRAHAM; S PARVATHI
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment; Condonation of delay; Income Tax; Rectification; Stay Petition
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 19TH MAGHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 4382 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) M/S. C & R HOTELS PVT. LTD., 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 SMT.S.PARVATHI RESPONDENT(S): 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. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1),KOCHI-682018. 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)CORPORATE RANGE 1,KOCHI-682018. 5. THE BRANCH MANAGER, HDFC BANK,KADAVANTHRA BRANCH,MKS TOWERS,SA ROAD, KADAVANTHRA,KOCHI-682020. 6. THE BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK,THRIPUNITHURA BRANCH,THRIPUNITHURA-682301. R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX R BY SRI.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN,SC,CANARA BAN R BY SRI.T.RAJESH, SC, HDFC BANK LTD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 4382 of 2018 (W) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 29.03.2016 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION DATED 03.05.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ASSESSING AUTHORITY. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM (WITHOUT ANNEXURES)DATED 25.07.2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT (A.Y.2013-14) EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 25.07.2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT (A.Y.2013-14) EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 25.07.2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT (A.Y.2013-14). EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.01.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT BANK. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.01.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT BANK. // true copy // PS TO JUDGE. Kvs/- P .B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P .(C).No.4382 of 2018 = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of February, 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. The self assessment made by the petitioner for the assessment year 2013-'14 has been revised in terms of Section 143(3) of the Act, as per Ext.P1 order. The petitioner initially preferred an application for rectification of Ext.P1 order. Ext.P2 is the application preferred by the petitioner in this connection. Later, by way of abundant caution, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 appeal also against Ext.P1 order before the second respondent. In Ext.P3 appeal, the petitioner preferred Ext.P4 application for stay. There was a delay of 83 days in preferring Ext.P3 appeal and therefore, the petitioner preferred Ext.P5 application for condoning the delay of 83 days in preferring Ext.P3 appeal. It is alleged by the petitioner that steps have already been taken by the respondents for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 order from the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions WPC.No.4382 of 2018 2 in this regard, in this writ petition. 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, especially the fact that the petitioner has preferred an appeal challenging Ext.P1 order, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P5 application preferred by the petitioner for condonation of delay in preferring Ext.P3 appeal, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say that if the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, the second respondent shall also pass orders on Ext.P4 application for stay within the said period. Needless also to say that until orders are passed on Exts.P4 and P5 applications, as the case may be, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 order shall be deferred. Sd/- P .B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. Kvs/- // true copy // "