P.K.MOHAMMED PVT LTD V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEEALS II)

WP(C)/26875/2012

AI Insights

The case involves P.K. Mohammed Pvt Ltd, represented by its managing director, A.K. Santhosh, who filed a writ petition against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals II) and the Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1). The petitioner challenged an assessment order for the year 2007-08, which led to a dispute over tax payments. The petitioner had filed an appeal and a stay petition, both pending before the appellate authority. Meanwhile, the Income Tax Officer allowed the petitioner to pay the assessed amount in installments, of which only the first was paid, leading to a notice of default and potential penalty. The petitioner sought relief from the High Court to stay the recovery proceedings pending the decision on the stay petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755886 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH; P A REZIYA
• Assessee Lawyers: K P SATHEESAN; M R JAYAPRASAD; P MOHANDAS; ANOOP NAIR
• Keywords: Appeal; Income tax assessment; Instalment payment; Penalty; Stay Petition
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/29TH KARTHIKA 1934 WP(C).No. 26875 of 2012 (H) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- P.K.MOHAMMED PVT LTD,, AGED 87 YEARS REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,A.K.SANTHOSH P.B.NO.506,SUBRAMANIAN ROAD,WILLINGDON ISLAND KOCHI-682003. BY ADVS.DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEEALS II), SANJUAN TOWERS,KOCHI-682018. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1),KOCHI,4TH FLOOR CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING,I.S.PRESS ROAD KOCHI-682018. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.P.A.REZIYA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.26875/12 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE COCHIN PORT TRUST TO THE PETITIONER DATED 30-7-2011 EXT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE COCHIN PORT TRUST TO THE PETITIONER DATED 29-5-2012 EXT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTED 19-6-2012 EXT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 5-7-2012 EXT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION GIVEN by the 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 17-7-2012. EXT-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 20-7-2012. EXT-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.AACCP 2187Q/WD.4(1)KOCHI/2012-13 DATED 30-10-2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 16.11.12. //True Copy// PA to Judge Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 26875 OF 2012 =================== Dated this the 20th day of November, 2012 J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Ext.P3 is an order of assessment passed against the petitioner under the Income Tax Act and the relevant assessment year is 2007-08. It appears that aggrieved by the assessment order, petitioner has filed Ext.P6 appeal, which is pending consideration of the 1st respondent. Along with IA 15514/12, petitioner has also produced as Ext.P8, a stay petition filed in the appeal. According to the petitioner, both the appeal and the stay petition are pending consideration of the appellate authority. In the meantime, petitioner had moved the 2nd respondent by filing Ext.P4 and on that application, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P5 order allowing the petitioner to pay off the amounts in instalments. Although the petitioner has paid the first instalment, which was due on 31/8/2012, remaining instalments were not paid. In such circumstances, by Ext.P7, petitioner has been called upon to show cause why penalty shall not be imposed, being an WPC.No.26875/12 :2 : assessee in default. It is in such circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 3. Thus admittedly, Ext.P6 appeal and Ext.P8 stay petition filed by the petitioner against Ext.P3 order of assessment is pending consideration of the 1st respondent. Therefore, I direct the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 stay petition. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is directed that in the meanwhile, further proceedings for recovery of the tax due under Ext.P3 order of assessment shall be kept in abeyance. 4. Petitioner will produce a a copy of this judgment, the writ petition and IA No.15514/12 before the 1st respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp "