Diana Gomez V. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Assessment Officer, Office of the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)

WA/375/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Diana Gomez, the appellant, who challenged the judgment of a Single Judge regarding a stay on recovery proceedings for income tax demands. Initially, the appellant was directed to remit 15% of the total demand as a condition for the stay, which she contested. The High Court, upon hearing the appeal, found the condition to remit 15% arbitrary and thus modified the judgment by removing this condition while upholding other directions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 818742 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P G JAYASHANKAR; KEERTHIVAS GIRI
• Assessee Lawyers: S BABU; ARUN GAADHA; SURESH NAIR; M PRASAD; PARVATHY VISWANATH; JAYAN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Income Tax; Recovery proceedings; Stay of recovery

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 THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1945 WA NO. 375 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.1.2024 IN WP(C) NO.42292 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: DIANA GOMEZ,AGED 64 YEARS W/O PETER PEREIRA, AGED 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT JULIE LAND, MUDIYAKODE, CHERUNNIYOOR, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695142 BY ADVS. S.GOKUL BABU ARUN M.V. GAADHA SURESH KESHAVRAJ NAIR M.ANIL PRASAD PARVATHY NAIR VISWANATH JAYAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYKAR BHAWAN, 1 ST FLOOR, KAWDIAR P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, 695003. W.A.No.375/2024 -:2:- 2 ASSESSMENT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN, KOWDIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, 695003. BY ADVS.ADV. P.G. JAYASHANKAR KEERTHIVAS GIRI THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.No.375/2024 -:3:- J U D G M E N T Dated this the 14th day of March, 2024 Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J. The petitioner in WP(C).No. 42292 of 2023 is the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 5.1.2024 in the Writ Petition. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows: 2. The appellant had impugned Ext.P1 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.P1 order, it has preferred an appeal along with an application to condone the delay and a stay petition before the 1st respondent, the Appellate Authority. In the meantime, coercive steps were taken for realisation of the demands. Therefore, the appellant preferred W.A.No.375/2024 -:4:- WP(C) No. 42292 of 2023 before this Court. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the application for condoning the delay as well as the stay petition within a period of two months. Even though the learned Single Judge, granted stay of recovery proceedings, the petitioner/appellant was directed to remit 15% of the total demand as per Ext.P1 assessment order within a period of one week as a condition for the stay which is under challenge in this appeal. 3. We have heard Sri. Gokul Babu S., the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. P.G. Jayasankar, the learned Standing counsel for the Income Tax Department. 4. The learned Single Judge had relegated the appellant to the alternative remedy before the statutory authority and stay of the recovery proceedings was granted. We feel that the condition imposed to remit 15% of the total demand for grant of stay is arbitrary. Accordingly, we modify the impugned judgment W.A.No.375/2024 -:5:- of the learned Single Judge setting aside the condition imposed to remit 15% of the total demand. 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 "