MARTIN PUTHUMANA THOMAS, V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

WA/594/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Martin Puthumana Thomas, the proprietor of M/s. Puthumana Gold House, who appealed against the decision of the learned single judge, which upheld the conditional stay of recovery imposed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals. The condition required the appellant to remit 15% of the aggregate demand, reduced by any demand already paid, in three equal installments. The appellant challenged this condition, leading to the writ appeal. The High Court of Kerala, after considering the submissions and the compliance by the appellant, decided to direct the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals to expedite the disposal of the appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 750613 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-08-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: S ARUN RAJ; C T SUJA
• Keywords: Assessment; Conditional Order; Income Tax; Stay of recovery
• Section: 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 25TH SRAVANA, 1944 W.A. NO.594 OF 2022 (AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTWP(C) 1316/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA) APPELLANT/PETITIONER: MARTIN PUTHUMANA THOMAS, AGED 44 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S.PUTHUMANA GOLD HOUSE, MAIN ROAD, PAYYANNUR-670 307. BY ADVS. S.ARUN RAJ C.T.SUJA RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: 1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KANNUR RANGE, KANNUR-670 006. 2 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673 001. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Writ Appeal No.594/2022 2 JUDGMENT (Dated: 16th August, 2022) Basant Balaji, J The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned single judge in W.P.(C)No.1316 of 2019, wherein the learned single judge refused to interfere with Ext.P12 order, by which the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals granted a stay of recovery of demands on condition the appellant remits 15% of the aggregate demand as reduced by demand already paid in three equal instalments. 2. The petitioner is an individual engaged in the business of trading in gold and silver jewellery at Payyannur in Kannur and is an assessee of the income tax. A notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued on 08.03.2016. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner filed a revised return on 11.08.2016, declaring the income originally returned. Though the petitioner requested reasons for re-opening the assessment for the assessment years, without Writ Appeal No.594/2022 3 furnishing the reasons for re-opening, the assessment was proceeded under Section 143(3) read with Section 148 of the Act. The petitioner, therefore, filed a statutory appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals and submitted a stay application against the collection of demand for the assessment years 2010-11 & 2014-15. The stay petition was disposed of by the Commissioner of Appeals and granted stay on condition that the petitioner pays 15% of the aggregate demand as reduced by demand already paid by three equal instalments. Impugning the said order, the writ petition was filed. 3. The learned single judge did not interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Appeals for the fact that the discretionary domain of the Appellate Authority cannot be interfered with unless the authority has acted ultra vires or pervasive or bogus. The learned single judge found that there are no grounds to interfere with, hence the writ petition was dismissed, but extended the time for compliance with the direction to remit 15% of the amount by two months. Writ Appeal No.594/2022 4 4. Today, the counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has remitted the following amounts: Sl.No. Date of the amount remitted Amount remitted. 1 26.09.2018 Rs.17,79,490/- 2 03.03.2022 Rs.5,15,874.44/- 3 March 2022 Rs.12,254/- 4 30.07.2022 Rs.30,04,693/- Therefore, he requests that, since the conditional order for payment of 15% of the amount demanded has been complied with, a direction may be issued to the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals to dispose of the appeal within a stipulated time. The Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department submits that if the petitioner has already deposited 15% of the amount as ordered in Ext.P12, the appeal can be disposed of within a period of three months. Taking note of the submissions of both the counsel, we are of the view that, since the appellant has already deposited 15% of the aggregate demand, the writ appeal can be disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to dispose of the appeal within a time limit. Writ Appeal No.594/2022 5 In the result, the writ appeal is allowed as follows: The 3rd respondent considers taking up ITA Nos.10996, 10999, 11002, 11048, and 11114/CIT(A)/2016-17 and disposes of the appeals within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. It is made clear that since the appellant has already deposited 15% of the aggregate demand, there will be an interim stay of further proceedings till the appeals are disposed of as stated above. The Writ Appeal is disposed of. Sd/- S.V.BHATTI, JUDGE Sd/- BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE ss "