M/S. KERALA RURAL EMPLOYMENT AND WELFARE SOCIETY V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/29350/2015

AI Insights

The case involves M/S. Kerala Rural Employment and Welfare Society, which filed a writ petition against the conditional stay order issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Trivandrum. The stay order was related to an appeal against an assessment order for the year 2012-2013, which had disallowed certain claims of excess depreciation and gratuity expenses amounting to approximately Rs.37,00,000 against an assessed income of Rs.1,42,00,000. The petitioner challenged the terms of the stay order, arguing that the conditions imposed were not validly exercised. The High Court of Kerala, after considering the submissions and the circumstances of the case, dismissed the writ petition, affirming the stay order's conditions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699093 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K M V PANDALAI
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL NAIR; R SREEJITH; ROSIE JOSEPH; SOUMYA PRAKASH; O A NURIYA; MEKHALA BENNY
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Conditional stay order; Excess depreciation; Gratuity expenses; Income Tax
• Section: 226

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/7TH ASWINA, 1937 WP(C).No. 29350 of 2015 (P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S. KERALA RURAL EMPLOYMENT AND WELFARE SOCIETY, CORPORATION JUBILEE BUILDING, OVERBRIDGE JN., MG ROAD, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.R.SREEJITH SMT.ROSIE ATHULYA JOSEPH KUM.SOUMYA PRAKASH SMT.O.A.NURIYA KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: msv/ WP(C).No. 29350 of 2015 (P) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: -------------------------------------- EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD.23.3.2015 FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE A.Y.2012-2013. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE A.Y.2012-2013. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY FO THE STAY ORDER DTD.18.9.2015 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE A.Y.2012-2013. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE Msv/ A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. =========================================== W.P.(C). No. 29350 of 2015 ===================================================== Dated this the 29th day of September, 2015 JUDGMENT The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P4 conditional order of stay, passed by the 2nd respondent in an appeal preferred by the petitioner against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, for the assessment year 2012-2013. The challenge in the writ petition against Ext.P4 order is essentially that the 2nd respondent, while passing the stay order, did not exercise its discretion validly. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that in Ext.P4 order, the 2nd respondent has granted a stay of the demand outstanding against the petitioner on condition that the petitioner remits 75% of the said demand in six equal monthly installments commencing from 30.09.2015. The conditional order was passed taking into account the fact that the petitioner had challenged only the disallowance with regard to excess depreciation and gratuity -2- W.P.(C). No. 29350 of 2015 expenses to an extent of approximately Rs.37,00,000/- as against an assessed income of approximately Rs.1,42,00,000/-. On a consideration of the reasons given by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P4 order, I do not see any scope for interfering with the said order in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I also note that in Ext.P4 order, the 2nd respondent has granted six equal monthly installments commencing from 30.09.2015 for the petitioner to remit 75% of the demand outstanding pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order. Under the said circumstances, the writ petition in its challenge against Ext.P4 order fails, and is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE das "