MPG Hotels and Infrastructure Ventures Private Limited V. Union of India and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kochi and Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram

WP(C)/20772/2022

AI Insights

The case involves MPG Hotels and Infrastructure Ventures Private Limited, which filed a writ petition against the Union of India and other income tax authorities due to the non-consideration of their appeal and stay petition concerning an income tax assessment. The petitioner was aggrieved by an assessment order and a subsequent demand notice for a substantial tax amount. Despite filing an appeal and a stay petition, the petitioner faced coercive recovery actions from the tax authorities. The court, upon hearing the arguments, decided to stay any coercive actions until the stay petition was duly considered by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 701058 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Rules
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VIKAS SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: M NAMBIAR; K MATHAI; JOSON KURYAN THOMAS; PAULO ABRAHAM; RAJAKANNAN
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment; Coercive Action; Income Tax; Stay Petition
• Section: 143(3); 45

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 20772 OF 2022 PETITIONER MPG HOTELS AND INFRASTRUCTURE VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUTHOOT CENTRE, PUNNEN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 039, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY - MR. RAKESH RAJAN BY ADVS. M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR K.JOHN MATHAI JOSON MANAVALAN KURYAN THOMAS PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RAJA KANNAN RESPONDENTS 1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI 110 004. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI,C-BLOCK, 4TH FLOOR, S.P. M. CIVIC CENTER, NEW DELHI - 110001. 3 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KANDOMKULATHY TOWERS, INCOME TAX OFFICE, OPPOSITE MAHARAJAS COLLEGE GROUND, M.G. ROAD, KOCHI- 682 011. 4 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE CENTRAL, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR, KAWADIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.20772 of 2022 : 2 : J U D G M E N T Dated this the 27th day of June, 2022 The petitioner is aggrieved by the non consideration of their appeal filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and stay petition. 2. The petitioner states that an assessment was made under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the petitioner-Company. A notice of demand of Rs.6,03,25,850/- was also issued on 16.02.2022. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 statutory appeal invoking Rule 45 of the Income Tax Rules. The petitioner also submitted a stay petition dated 25.05.2022 as evidenced by Ext.P3. 3. The petitioner states that the competent authority has not considered Ext.P2 appeal or Ext.P3 stay petition. In the meanwhile, the respondents are taking coercive steps for recovery of the erroneously assessed income tax. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court. W.P.(C) No.20772 of 2022 : 3 : 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned ASG representing the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 2 to 4. 5. In view of the fact that the petitioner has invoked their statutory remedy under Part A of Chapter XX of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against Ext.P1 assessment order and also that the petitioner has moved a stay petition, this Court is of the view that it will be only just and proper that the respondents desist from taking coercive action against the petitioner, till Ext.P3 stay petition is considered by the 2nd respondent. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 stay petition filed by the petitioner within a period of two months and pass appropriate orders thereon. Till such time, coercive proceedings, if any, against the petitioner shall stand stayed. Sd/- N. NAGARESH, JUDGE smm/29.06.2022 W.P.(C) No.20772 of 2022 : 4 : APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20772/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2022 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT, ALONG WITH THE COMPUTATION SHEET AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 16.02.2022. Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 15.03.2022 (WITHOUT ANNEXURES). Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 25.05.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 28.05.2022 UNDER COVER OF WHICH THE STAY PETITION WAS FORWARDED, ALONG WITH PROOF OF DELIVERY. Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 17.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. "