M.J. LAWRENCE V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/7612/2018

AI Insights

The case involves M.J. Lawrence Madathiparambil, the petitioner, who is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The self-assessment for the year 2007-08 was revised by the Assessing Authority under Section 143(3) of the Act, leading to an appeal by the petitioner. Pending the appeal, the petitioner sought a stay on the revised assessment order, which was partially granted by the Assessing Authority. The petitioner challenged the conditions of the stay in this writ petition. The court considered the submissions and decided to allow the petitioner to apply for a stay before the appellate authority, emphasizing adherence to the Central Board of Direct Taxes' circulars regarding stay applications.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 697401 (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: SREELAL WARRIAR; JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL NAIR; R SREEJITH; P PAUL; MEKHALA BENNY; ASISH MOHAN; G KRISHNAKUMAR MALLYA; MARY JOSSY; ACHYUT PADMARAJ
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Income Tax; Self-assessment; Stay Petition
• Section: 143(3); 220(6)

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. 7612 of 2018 PETITIONER M.J. LAWRENCE MADATHIPARAMBIL(KADMATTUPARAMBIL), MARADU P.O.,KOCHI, PIN-682 304. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.R.SREEJITH SRI.P.JINISH PAUL KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY SRI.ASISH MOHAN SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR (MALLYA) SMT.MARY JOSSY SRI.ACHYUT K PADMARAJ RESPONDENTS: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,ERNAKULAM-682 018. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), ERNAKULAM-682 018. BY SRI.SREELAL WARRIAR, C.G.C BY STANDING COUNSEL: SRI.JOSE JOSEPH 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. 7612 of 2018 (B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2017 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLANS EVIDENCING THE PAYMENTS DATED 31.1.2018. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLANS EVIDENCING THE PAYMENTS DATED 28.2.2018. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.2.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 29.2.2016. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 31.7.2017. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- PA TO JUDGE rsr P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7612 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). The self assessment made by the petitioner for the year 2007-'08 has been revised by the Assessing Authority invoking the power under Section 143(3), in terms of Ext.P1 order. Ext.P1 order has been challenged by the petitioner in Ext.P2 appeal. Pending disposal of Ext.P2 appeal, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 application invoking sub-section (6) of Section 220 of the Act before the Assessing Authority. Ext.P3 stay petition has now been disposed of by the Assessing Authority in terms of Ext.P6 order. Ext.P6 order is under challenge in the writ petition. W.P.(c).No.7612 of 2018 : 2 : 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. 3. The case of the petitioner is that in terms of various circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct T axes (CBDT), the petitioner is liable to pay only 20% for the purpose of getting stay and the petitioner has already deposited 20% of the tax demanded in terms of Ext.P1 order. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted, on instructions, that deviations can be drawn from the directions issued by the CBDT in appropriate cases. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made at the Bar, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to prefer an application for stay before the appellate authority in Ext.P2 appeal, within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and directing the appellate authority to pass orders on the said stay petition. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say that the order passed by the appellate W.P.(c).No.7612 of 2018 : 3 : authority on the stay petition will govern the matter. Needless also to say that till orders are passed on the application for stay directed to be preferred by the petitioner, further proceedings for realization of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 order shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE rsr "