Sashi Raghavan Kumar V. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

WA/1996/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Sashi Raghavan Kumar, the appellant, who challenged an assessment order (Ext.P1) under the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2018-2019. The appellant had filed an appeal (Ext.P2) along with a delay petition (Ext.P3) and a stay petition (Ext.P4) against the assessment order, fearing immediate recovery actions by the respondents before the petitions could be considered. The Single Judge of the High Court directed the respondents to consider the delay and stay petitions but did not stay the recovery proceedings. The appellant appealed against this decision, seeking a stay on the recovery proceedings pending the decision on the stay petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 808300 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISANKAR MENON; MEERA MENON; R; K KRISHNA; PARVATHY MENON
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Delay petition; Income Tax; Recovery proceedings; Stay Petition
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1945 WA NO. 1996 OF 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.10.2023 IN WP(C) 33098/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/S: SASHI RAGHAVAN KUMAR, AGED 66 YEARS S/O. RAGHAVAN KUMAR, PATHIRUVELIL HOUSE, MALLAPPALLY, EZHUMATTOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA., PIN - 689586 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON, R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA, PARVATHY MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, PIN - 110001 SC- SRI.JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A. No.1996 of 2023 -:2:- J U D G M E N T Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. The petitioner in WP(C).No. 33098 of 2023 is the appellant herein aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.10.2023 in the Writ Petition. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows: 2. The appellant had impugned Ext.P1 assessment order before this Court in the Writ Petition when confronted with recovery steps for recovery of the amounts confirmed against him by the assessment order. It was the case of the appellant that against Ext.P1 assessment order he has preferred Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P3 delay petition and Ext.P4 stay petition for the assessment year 2018-2019 under the Income Tax Act. The apprehension of the appellant was that even before consideration of the delay petition and stay petition there would be recovery steps initiated by the respondents for recovery of the amounts confirmed against the appellant by Ext.P1assessment order. 3. The learned Single Judge who considered the matter directed the respondents to consider and pass orders on the delay petition and the stay petition if it was not possible to finally hear the appeal expeditiously. The learned Single Judge, however, did not grant a stay of recovery proceedings pending disposal of the stay petition by the respondents. It is for this limited W.A. No.1996 of 2023 -:3:- relief that the appellant is before us through the present appeal. 4. We have heard Sri. Harisankar V. Menon, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing counsel for the Income Tax Department. 5. In our view, since the learned Single Judge had relegated the appellant to the alternative remedy before the statutory authority it was incumbent upon the learned Judge to protect the appellant from recovery proceedings pending disposal of the petitions by the respondent appellate authority. Accordingly, we modify the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge to the limited extent of clarifying that pending disposal of the stay petition or appeal whichever is earlier by the appellate authority, the recovery proceedings against the appellant for recovery of the amounts confirmed against him by Ext.P1assessment order shall be kept in abeyance. Save for this limited modification, the rest of the directions in the impugned judgment are not interfered with. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp "