Chalakkal Antony Jose Valloor V. The Additional/ Joint/ Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income-Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre and The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) and The Commissioner of Income-Tax and The Income-Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Thrissur

WA/119/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Chalakkal Antony Jose Valloor, the appellant, who challenged the recovery steps initiated against him following an order (Ext.P13) confirming certain tax demands. The appellant had previously filed an appeal (Ext.P14) and a stay petition (Ext.P17) against this order with the 2nd respondent, the Appellate Authority, and sought an out-of-turn hearing (Ext.P19) from the 3rd respondent. The Single Judge of the High Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider the stay application but did not stay the recovery proceedings. The appellant contested this decision, leading to the current writ appeal (WA No. 119 of 2024). The High Court, upon hearing the appeal, decided to keep the recovery proceedings in abeyance until the appellate authority resolved the stay petition or the appeal itself.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 677928 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: G KEERTHIVAS; P G JAYASHANKER
• Assessee Lawyers: NITHISH SHENOY; M S MUHAMMED; SHERRY OOMMEN; SREEKESHMI SUKUMAR NAINAN OOMMEN
• Keywords: Faceless Appeal; Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Recovery proceedings; Stay Application

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 FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 13TH MAGHA, 1945 WA NO. 119 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.12.2023 IN WP(C) 37397/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT: CHALAKKAL ANTONY JOSE VALLOOR, AGED 57 YEARS S/O ANTONY,CHALAKKAL HOUSE,PUTHENPEEDIKA, ANTHIKAD, PIN - 680642 BY ADVS.NITISH SATHESH SHENOY M.S.INSAAF MUHAMMEDU SHERRY SAMUEL OOMMEN SREELEKSHMI BEN SUKUMAR NAINAN OOMMEN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ADDITIONAL/ JOINT/ DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, 4TH FLOOR,MAYUR BHAWAN,CONNAUGHT CIRCUS,NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 THE NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), MAYUR BHAWAN,CONNAUGHT LANE,BARAKHAMBA,NEW DELHI -REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, PIN - 110001 W.A.No.119/2024 -:2:- 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN,ST NAGAR,TRICHUR, PIN - 680001 4 THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1),THRISSUR,AAYAKAR BHAVAN,INCOME TAX OFFICE,SHAKTHANTHAMPURAN NAGAR,THRISSUR,KERALA, PIN - 680001 SC-G.KEERTHIVAS SRI. P.G.JAYASHANKER, SC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.No.119/2024 -:3:- J U D G M E N T Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2024 Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J. The petitioner in WP(C).No. 37397 of 2023 is the appellant herein aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.12.2023 in the Writ Petition. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows: 2. The appellant had impugned Ext.P13 order before this Court in the writ petition when confronted with recovery steps for recovery of the amounts confirmed against it by the order. It was the case of the appellant that against Ext.P13 order, he has preferred Ext.P14 appeal along with Ext.P17 stay petition before the 2nd respondent, the Appellate Authority. The appellant has also preferred Ext.P19 application before the 3rd respondent seeking out of turn hearing of the appeal. In the meantime, coercive steps were taken for realisation of the demands. Therefore, the appellant preferred WP(C) No.37397/2023 before W.A.No.119/2024 -:4:- this Court. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate order on Ext.P17 stay application. The learned Single Judge, however, did not grant stay of recovery proceedings pending disposal of the stay petition by the said respondent. 3. We have heard Sri. Nithish Sathesh Shenoy, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. G. Keerthivas, the learned Standing counsel for the Income Tax Department. 4. In our view, since the learned Single Judge had relegated the appellant to the alternative remedy before the statutory authority, it was incumbent upon the learned Judge to protect the appellant from recovery proceedings pending disposal of the petitions 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 stay petition or appeal, whichever is earlier by the appellate authority, the recovery proceedings against the appellant for recovery of the amounts confirmed against it by W.A.No.119/2024 -:5:- Ext.P13 order shall be kept in abeyance. Ext.P19 application for early hearing of the appeal shall also be considered by the 3rd respondent in accordance with law. Save for this limited modification, the rest of the directions in the impugned judgment are not interfered with. The writ appeal is disposed of as above. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp "