JITHA PRASAD V. UNION OF INDIA

WP(C)/6972/2016

AI Insights

In this case, Jitha Prasad, the petitioner, challenged a conditional stay order issued by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which required her to deposit Rs.30,00,000 to obtain a stay against the recovery of tax dues confirmed by an earlier assessment order. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal did not validly exercise its discretion in imposing such a condition. The High Court found that the Tribunal failed to provide reasons for this condition, which is a requirement as established in the precedent Archana Agencies v Commercial Tax Officer. Consequently, the court quashed the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter back for reconsideration, instructing the Tribunal to provide a reasoned decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 743980 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Archana Agencies v Commercial Tax Officer - 2014 (2) KLT 715
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K M V P ANDALA; LILLY
• Assessee Lawyers: P G JAYASHANKAR
• Keywords: Conditional stay; Discretion of authority; Income tax assessment; Stay Petition
• Section: 148; 142

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/5TH PHALGUNA, 1937 WP(C).No. 6972 of 2016 (V) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- JITHA PRASAD, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.KRISHNA PRASAD, RESIDING AT BRINDAVAN, THYCAUD, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.P.G.JA YASHANKAR. RESPONDENTS:-: ------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY IT SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT , NEW DELHI - 110 001. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM - 695 003. 3. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM - 695 003. 4. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, KENDRIYA BHAV AN, KAKKANADU, KOCHI - 682 020. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.V.P ANDALAI, SC. R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LILLY K.T. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. WP(C).No. 6972 of 2016 (V) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF GO(MS)NO.74/2008 F & PD DATED 25.11.2008. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) 11/2010 DATED 03.03.2010. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.LA 2-2/2010 DATED 12.03.2010. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT DATED 11.06.2010. EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.LA-2/2/2010 DATED 14.07.2010. EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.ZK4-67260 DATED 10.12.2010. EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.LAC NO.509/2010 DATED 25.01.2011. EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.401/2011 OF SRO, VENGANOOR, DATED 10.02.2011. EXHIBIT P9. TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO NO.LA2/2/2010 DATED 16.04.2010. EXHIBIT P10. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY AGRICULTURAL OFFICER. EXHIBIT P11. TRUE COPY OF GO(P)NO.113/10/LSGD DATED 08.06.2010. EXHIBIT P12. TRUE COPY OF RETURN FOR THE AY 2011-12. EXHIBIT P13. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER S.148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. EXHIBIT P14. TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 22.01.2014. EXHIBIT P15. TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P16. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.03.2014 ISSUED UNDER S.142 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. EXHIBIT P17. TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS DATED 06.06.2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P18. TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH THE COMPUTATION STATEMENT AND DEMAND NOTICE. EXHIBIT P19. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2015 IN ITA 118/2014-15/TVM. EXHIBIT P20. TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN FORM NO.36 AS ITA NO.305/COCH/2015. ......2/- WP(C).No. 6972 of 2016 (V) EXHIBIT P21. TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION AS SP NO.57/COCH/2015 ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT. EXHIBIT P22. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.08.2015 IN WP(C).NO. 24075/2015. EXHIBIT P23. TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMARY OF EVENTS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P24. TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P25. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.LAC 499/10, 509/10 DATED 20.12.2010 BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA). EXHIBIT P26. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.SARB/TVM/2369/2010-11 DATED 20.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE ASST. GENERAL MANAGER, SBI. EXHIBIT P27. TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) DATED 20.12.2010. EXHIBIT P28. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.LAC 499/10, 509/10 DATED 21.12.2010 BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA). EXHIBIT P29. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.SARB/TVM/2814/2010-11 DATED 07.02.2011. EXHIBIT P30. TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER DATED 29.01.2016, RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER ON 15.02.2016. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 6972 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of February 2016 JUDGMENT Against Ext.P18 Assessment order, petitioner preferred Ext.P20 appeal before the 4th respondent. Along with the appeal, the petitioner had also preferred Ext.P21 stay petition. The 4th respondent has now passed Ext.P30 order on the stay petition directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- as a condition for the grant of stay against recovery of the balance amounts confirmed against the petitioner vide Ext.P18 assessment order. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns the said conditional order of stay, inter alia, on the ground that the 4th respondent had not exercised his discretion validly while passing the said order. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case W.P.(c).No.6972 of 2016 : 2 : and submissions made across the bar, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:- (i) In Ext.P30 order, the 4th respondent does not state reasons as to why the petitioner was required to deposit the amounts as a condition for the grant of stay. This Court has held in Archana Agencies v Commercial Tax Officer - 2014 (2) KLT 715 that an authority considering a stay petition is bound to give reasons even while granting conditional stay. (ii) Ext.P30 order is quashed and the 4th respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders in the stay petition, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after hearing the petitioner. (iii) Recovery steps, if any, initiated against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till such time as fresh orders are passed by the 4th respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE sm/ "