M/S.POPULAR TRADERS V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

WA/901/2017

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Popular Traders, represented by its managing partner Prabha Thomas, appealing against a judgment that required them to remit 15% of the assessed amount as a condition for stay on the appeals concerning the years 2013-14 to 2016-17. The original judgment was delivered by a Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala, which the appellant contested in this writ appeal. The court examined the principles laid down by the Allahabad High Court and the provisions in the office memo dated 29.2.2016, but found them not applicable as the relevant precedents were from the Apex Court and the jurisdictional High Court.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699167 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K M V PANDALAI
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISANKAR MENON; MEERA MENON; MAHESH MENON
• Keywords: Assessment; Interim order; Stay condition; Writ Appeal
• Section: 15

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2017/11TH JYAISHTA, 1939 WA.No.901 of 2017 IN WP(C)1239/2017 ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 1239/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 16-01-2017 APPELLANT/APPELLANT: -------------------- M/S.POPULAR TRADERS POPULAR TOWERS, VAKAYAR P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, PRABHA THOMAS. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) AARATTUKULAKKARA COMPLEX, AN PURAM, ALAPPUZHA - 688 011. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. 3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) 3RD FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003. R BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-06-2017 ALONG WITH W.A.903/17, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC & K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.Nos.901 & 903 of 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of June, 2017 JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. These appeals are filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C)Nos.1239/17 and 1244/17, which were disposed of by a common judgment dated 16th January 2017. The challenge in the writ petitions, which were heard along with W.P. (C)1236/17, was against the interim order passed by the 1st Appellate Authority under the Income Tax Act in the appeals filed by the appellant against the orders of assessment concerning the years 2013-14 to 2016-17. By the judgment under appeal, learned Single Judge directed the appellant to remit 15% of the amount assessed as condition for stay and it is this judgment, which is under challenge before us. 2. We heard the counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. W.A.Nos.901 & 903 of 2017 : 2 : 3. According to the learned counsel, the learned Single Judge ought not to have required the appellant to remit 15% of the amount having regard to the principles laid down by the Allahabad High Court and the provisions contained in the office memo dated 29.2.2016. As is evident from the judgment under appeal itself what would have been of assistance to the appellant, was only the judgment of the Apex Court and the jurisdictional High Court. Therefore this plea was rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge. 4. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in requiring the appellant to remit 15% of the disputed demand. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal. 5. Be that as it may, from the submissions made before us we are informed that a part of the amount due to satisfy the 15% as ordered by the learned Single Judge has already been remitted by W.A.Nos.901 & 903 of 2017 : 3 : the appellant. Taking note of the above and also the financial constraints that are projected before us, we allow the appellant a period of 8 weeks from today to satisfy the balance amounts that is due. Subject to the above modification, the appeals are disposed of. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/- K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH JUDGE jes "