Preetha Ajay V. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre and Income Tax Officer Corporate Ward 1 (1), Kochi

WP(C)/409/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Preetha Ajay, the petitioner, who challenged the enforcement of a tax demand following an assessment order (Exhibit P1) issued under Sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner had filed an appeal (Exhibit P2) and a stay application (Exhibit P3) with the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which remained undecided. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to expedite the decision on the stay application and to temporarily halt the tax recovery process. The Income Tax Department did not object to the expedited decision but opposed the stay on the tax demand, suggesting that an automatic stay applies if 20% of the assessed tax is deposited, as per their Office Memorandum.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 679657 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL NAIR; TELMA RAJU
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Stay of recovery; Tax assessment; 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 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 15TH POUSHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 409 OF 2024 PETITIONER/S: PREETHA AJAY AGED 51 YEARS 5-2, KALPAKA RAJ MAHAL APARTMENTS BTS ROAD, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN KERALA, PIN - 682024 BY ADVS. ANIL D. NAIR TELMA RAJU RESPONDENT/S: 1 ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 3 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CORPORATE WARD 1 (1), KOCHI, PIN - 682018 OTHER PRESENT: JOSE JOSEPH-SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C)No.409 of 2024 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 5th day of January, 2024 The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs: i) Issue a writ of mandamus, and such other writ, order or direction, directing the second Respondent to dispose of Exhibit P2 appeal and Exhibit P3 application filed before 2nd Respondent as expeditiously as possible. ii) Pending hearing and final disposal of the writ petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant stay of recovery of tax due under Exhibit P1 which is now sought to be recovered through Exhibit P4. iii) Issue such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 2. The petitioner has suffered Ext.P1 assessment order dated 26.03.2022 under Section 147 read with Section 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act. Aggrieved by the said assessment order the petitioner has filed appeal before the 2nd respondent along with stay petition in Ext.P2 and P3 respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent has not decided the application for stay and in the meantime, the demand in pursuance to Ext.P1 order is being enforced. It is submitted that the only prayer is that the 2nd respondent be WP(C)No.409 of 2024 3 directed to decide at least Ext.P2 stay application expeditiously, and till the said application decided, the demand in pursuance to Ext.P1 order may not be enforced. 3. Sri. Jose Joseph, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department does not have objection for direction for early disposal of the stay petition. However, he submits that no direction should be passed staying the demand in pursuance to Ext.P1 assessment order. He further submits that according to the relevant Office Memorandum, if the petitioner deposits 20% of the assessed tax, there would be an automatic stay of the further demand. 4. I have considered the submissions. In view thereof, I am of the view that the 2nd respondent should decide the stay petition in Ext.P3 expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months and for a period of two months the demand in pursuance to Ext.P1 order should not be enforced. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition stands finally disposed of. Sd/- DINESH KUMAR SINGH AP JUDGE WP(C)No.409 of 2024 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 409/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26.3.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN FORM NO.35 ALONG WITH GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY OF DEMAND FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.4.2022 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 29.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT "