P.SHABEER ALI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2[3]

WP(C)/3251/2018

AI Insights

The case involves P. Shabeer Ali National Enterprises, the petitioner, who was aggrieved by an income tax assessment order for the year 2014-15. The petitioner filed an appeal against the assessment order and simultaneously requested a stay on the realization of the assessed amounts, which was pending. The primary issue was the delay by the assessing authority in deciding the stay application. The petitioner sought judicial intervention to expedite the decision on the stay application to prevent further proceedings for the realization of the assessed amounts.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 697239 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM; T RAJESH
• Assessee Lawyers: P RAGHUNATH; PREMJIT NAGENDRAN
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income tax assessment; Realisation of amounts; Stay of Proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 220(6)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 3251 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) P.SHABEER ALI NATIONAL ENTERPRISES, RAMANATTUKARA, CALICUT: 673 633 BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2[3] KOZHIKODE: 673 001 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) KOZHIKODE: 673 001 3. MANAGER HDFC BANK, RAMANATTUKARA:673 633 R BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT R BY SRI.T.RAJESH, SC, HDFC BANK LTD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 3251 of 2018 (F) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBITP1 PHOTOCOPY OF CIRCULAR NO.36/2016 DT.25-10-2016 EXHIBITP2 PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR 2014.15 DT.25.11.2016 EXHIBITP3 PHOTOCOPY OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE SECOND RESPONDENT AGAINST EXT.P2 EXHIBITP4 PHOTOCOPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBITP5 PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE ISSUED TO THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 04.01.2018 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.A. TO JUDGE SKS P .B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ================== W.P .(C.) No.3251 of 2018 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of March, 2018 JUDGMENT Petitioner was an assessee under the Income T ax Act (the Act). The assessment of the petitioner for the year 2014-'15 has been completed in terms of the provisions contained in Section 143(3) of the Act, as per Ext.P2 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P2 assessment order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 appeal before the second respondent. Pending disposal of Ext.P3 appeal, the petitioner moved an application before the assessing authority invoking sub- section (6) of Section 220 of the Act for stay of further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P2 assessment order. Ext.P4 is the application preferred by the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner concerns the delay on the part of the assessing authority in passing W .P .(C.) No.3251/2018 2 orders on Ext.P4 application. He, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard in the writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that after having filed Ext.P4 application, the petitioner preferred an application for stay before the second respondent in Ext.P3 appeal as well and the same is also pending. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to pass orders on the stay petition claimed to have been filed by the petitioner in Ext.P3 appeal, if the same has so far not been disposed of. Ordered accordingly. This shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say until orders are passed on the application for stay as directed above, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by the assessment order shall be deferred. If the bank accounts of the petitioner have been freezed for W .P .(C.) No.3251/2018 3 realisation of the amounts covered by the assessment order, the petitioner shall be permitted to operate the accounts until such time the direction aforesaid is complied with. sd/- P .B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE SKS "