SB College Staff Co-operative Society Limited V. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Income Tax Department, New Delhi and The Additional/Joint/Deputy/Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, Chenganacherry, Kottayam District

WA/2200/2023

AI Insights

The case involves the SB College Staff Co-operative Society Limited, which appealed against the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala. The appellant was aggrieved by an assessment order (Ext.P1) and had filed an appeal (Ext.P3) and a stay petition (Ext.P4) for the assessment year 2021-2022 under the Income Tax Act. The primary concern was the initiation of recovery steps by the respondents before the appeal could be considered. The Single Judge directed the respondents to expedite the hearing of the appeal but did not grant a stay on the recovery proceedings. The appellant sought this limited relief through the present writ appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 679532 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: O D SIVADAS
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income Tax; Recovery proceedings; Stay of recovery; Writ Appeal
• Section: 40809

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 FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 1ST POUSHA, 1945 WA NO. 2200 OF 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.12.2023 IN WP(C) 40809/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE SB COLLEGE STAFF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, NO. K 356, AGED 42 YEARS CHENGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY., PIN - 686101 BY ADV O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THE NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY., PIN – 686101 SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.No.2200/2023 -:2:- J U D G M E N T Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. The petitioner in WP(C).No. 40809 of 2023 is the appellant herein aggrieved by the judgment dated 7.12.2023 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 it by the assessment order. It was the case of the appellant that against Ext.P1 assessment order it has preferred Ext.P3 appeal and Ext.P4 stay petition for the assessment year 2021-2022 under the Income Tax Act. The apprehension of the appellant was that even before consideration of the appeal 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 finally hear and dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months. The learned Single Judge, however, did not grant a stay of recovery proceedings pending disposal of the appeal by the respondents. It is for this limited relief that the appellant W.A.No.2200/2023 -:3:- is before us through the present appeal. 4. We have heard Sri. O.D. Sivadas, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing counsel for the Income Tax Department. 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 petition 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 appeal by the appellate authority, the recovery proceedings against the appellant for recovery of the amounts confirmed against it 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 "