Karl Bernard V. Assessment Unit and Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) and Income Tax Officer Non Corp Ward 2(4) & TPS Kochi

WP(C)/27722/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Karl Bernard, the petitioner, who filed a writ petition against the Income Tax Department's assessment and demand notices. The petitioner, represented by his power of attorney holder and legal counsel, challenged the assessment order and demand notice issued by the Income Tax Department. After filing an appeal and a subsequent stay petition due to apprehensions of enforcement of the initial orders during the appeal's pendency, the petitioner sought the court's intervention to expedite the consideration of the stay petition. The court, after hearing the arguments, directed the second respondent to address the stay petition promptly and deferred all related proceedings until a decision is made.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 691627 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: R JAIKRISHNA; NARAYANI HARIKRISHNAN; ANISH P; C S ARUN SHANKAR
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Demand notice; Income Tax; Stay Petition; Writ petition
• Section: 156

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 31ST SRAVANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 27722 OF 2023 PETITIONER: KARL BERNARD AGED 65 YEARS 1/2034 A, BALMORAL HOUSE, ADHIKARI VALAPU ROAD, KUNNUMPURAM, ERNAKULAM. NOW RESIDING AT 9/11 GAP ROAD, THE GAP, NT - 0870, ALICE SPRINGS, AUSTRALIA REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER - SEBASTIAN ROYDEN BERNARD RESIDING AT 1/2034 A, BALMORAL HOUSE,ADHIKARI VALAPU ROAD KUNNUMPURAM, ERNAKULAM - 682001, PIN - 682001 BY ADVS. R.JAIKRISHNA NARAYANI HARIKRISHNAN ANISH P. C.S.ARUN SHANKAR RESPONDENTS: 1 ASSESSMENT UNIT PREVIOUSLY - ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME-TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, ROOM NO. 401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, NEW DELHI., PIN - 110003 2 COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTER (NFAC) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI., PIN - 110001 3 INCOME TAX OFFICER NON CORP WARD 2(4) & TPS KOCHI, OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI., PIN - 682018 OTHER PRESENT: SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 27722 OF 2023 2 Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2023 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to direct the second respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 appeal and P5 stay petition, expeditiously. 2. The petitioner's case is that, aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order and Ext.P2 demand notice, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 appeal before the second respondent as early as on 25.4.2023. During the pendency of Ext.P3 appeal, the third respondent has issued issued Ext.P4 letter. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P5 stay petition before the second respondent. The petitioner is apprehensive that during the pendency of Ext.P5, the respondents may enforce Exts.P1, P2 and P4. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard; Sri. Jaikrishna R., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher WP(C) NO. 27722 OF 2023 3 Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the fact that Ext.P5 stay petition is pending consideration before the second respondent, I deem it appropriate to direct the second respondent to consider and dispose of the same, immediately. Resultantly, I order the writ petition as follows:- (i) The second respondent is directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P5 stay petition, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (ii) Needless to mention, if the second respondent proposes to pass a conditional order of stay, he shall WP(C) NO. 27722 OF 2023 4 state reasons for the same. (iii) Until such time orders are passed on Ext.P5 stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 P2 and P4 shall stand deferred. Sd/- rmm22/8/2023 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE WP(C) NO. 27722 OF 2023 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27722/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH THE COMPUTATION SHEET ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 29.3.2023. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON 29.3.2023. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 25.4.2023. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 3.8.2023. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 8.8.2023. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT EVIDENCING SUBMISSION OF STAY PETITION DATED 8.8.2023. "