I.N. RAJESH V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR

WP(C)/7649/2018

AI Insights

The case involves I.N. Rajesh, the petitioner, who is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, contesting the delay by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4 (the second respondent) in deciding his stay application related to three assessment orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (the first respondent). The assessment orders for the years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 were issued on 27-12-2017, and the petitioner filed appeals against these orders. Concurrently, he filed a stay application, which was delayed in decision-making, prompting him to seek relief through this writ petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 697488 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: C UNNIKRISHNAN; JOHNSON GOMEZ
• Keywords: Assessment orders; Income Tax; Penalty proceedings; Stay Application
• Section: 221

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. 7649 of 2018 PETITIONER I.N.RAJESH AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, PROPRIETOR, GOUTHAM PHARMA, COSMOPOLITAN LANE, NEAR RAJI NURSING HOME, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR-680120. BY ADVS.SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENTS: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AYAKAR BHAVAN, S.T.NAGAR, THRISSUR-680001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4, POORNIMA BUILDINGS, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, COCHIN-682036. 3. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIR PERSON, C-II/49, SATYA MARG, CHANAKYAPURI, NEW DELHI-110021. 4. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE/FINANCE, 128 A, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX 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. 7649 of 2018 (E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 27-12-2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 27-12-2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 27-12-2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED ON 25-01-2018 AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF 2013-14. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED ON 25-01-2018 AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF 2014-15. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED ON 25-01-2018 AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF 2015-16. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 09-02-2018 INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.221 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS PER. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.AJGPRO788P/DCIT(CC)/TCR/2017-18 DATED 26-02-2018 REJECTING STAY ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 28-02-2018 PREFERRED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- PA TO JUDGE rsr P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7649 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 first respondent. Aggrieved by Exts.P1 to P3 assessment orders, the petitioner preferred Exts.P4 to P6 appeals before the second respondent. Ext.P9 is the composite application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Exts.P4 to P6 appeals. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the second respondent in passing orders on Ext.P9 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 Exts.P1 to P3 orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as W.P.(c).No.7649 of 2018 : 2 : 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.P9 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.P9 application for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P1 to P3 assessment orders shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE rsr "