Prathibha Traders V. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi and National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi and Income Tax Officer, Ward No.2, Tirur, Malappuram and Manager, Punjab National Bank Eramangalam Branch, Kozhikode

WP(C)/36272/2023

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Prathibha Traders, represented by its managing partner Musthafa Kamal Vilakkari, who filed a writ petition against the assessment order issued by the Income Tax Officer for the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner challenged the assessment and the subsequent demand notice and penalty proceedings by filing an appeal and a stay petition with the National Faceless Appeal Centre. The primary contention was the delay in the decision on the appeal and stay application, which led to ongoing recovery proceedings against the petitioner. The court's decision focused on ensuring a timely resolution by the appellate authority rather than intervening directly in the assessment dispute.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 797559 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-11-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AJITH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISANKAR MENON; K KRISHNA; MEERA MENON; R SREEJITH; PARVATHY MENON
• Keywords: Appeal; Income tax assessment; Stay Petition; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 147; 144; 144B

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 36272 OF 2023 PETITIONER: M/S. PRATHIBHA TRADERS, PUTHANPALLI ROAD, ERAMANGLAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MUSTHAFA KAMAL VILAKKERI, PIN – 679587. BY ADVS. SRI. HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT. K. KRISHNA SMT. MEERA V. MENON SRI. R. SREEJITH SMT. PARVATHY MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER,NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI,PIN – 110001. 2 NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PIN – 110001. 3 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.2 20/1240, TARIF BAZAR, TOWN HALL ROAD, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676101. 4 THE MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ERAMANGALAM BRANCH, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 679587. BY ADV. SRI. AJITH KUMAR – SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 36272 OF 2023 2 DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C) No.36272 of 2023 ------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2023 JUDGMENT 1. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs; (i) To direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal, and Ext.P3 stay petition by the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction. (ii) To grant the petitioner such other identical reliefs including the costs of these proceedings; 2. The assessment proceedings got completed in respect of the income of the petitioner for the assessment years 2017-18 vide the Exhibit P-1 order dated 26.03.2022. The total income of the petitioner for the said period has been assessed as Rs.34,14,093/- under Section 147 read with Section 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On the said income, demand notice has been issued and penalty proceedings has been directed to be initiated. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the petitioner has filed an appeal in Exhibit P-2 along with stay petition in Exhibit P-3 before the 2nd respondent. 3. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the appeal has been filed on time, i.e. on 06.04.2023 but, no decision has WP(C) NO. 36272 OF 2023 3 been taken on the appeal or the stay application and in the meantime the petitioner is facing recovery proceedings in respect of the tax assessed on the income of the petitioner by the Exhibit P-1 order. The submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent to be directed to decide the appeal and stay application in a time bound manner and till a decision is taken on the application and stay application, no coercive proceedings against the petitioner can be initiated. 4. I have considered the submissions. When the appellate authority seized of the matter, this Court would not like to exercise its writ jurisdiction parallelly. It would be suffice to direct the 2nd respondent to decide the appeal pending before it in accordance with the law within a period of two months, and if it is not possible to decide the appeal finally within two months, the stay application be decided within a period of two months from today in accordance with the law. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE Svn WP(C) NO. 36272 OF 2023 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36272/2023 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DTD. 26-03- 2022 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DTD. 06-04-2022 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STASY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 16- 10-2023 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT BANK DTD. 14-08-2023 "