Shameem Thari V. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle 1, Kozhikode and The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance

WA/1872/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shameem Thari against a judgment that did not grant a stay on recovery proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Department despite the appellant having filed stay petitions and appeals against the assessment orders. The appellant argued that the recovery should be stayed pending the decision on these petitions and appeals. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing the arguments, decided to modify the previous judgment to protect the appellant from immediate recovery actions until the appellate authority decides on the stay petitions or appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 682917 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: M P AHAMED; AKHIL MANITHOTTYIL; DANIYA PALLIAYALIL NAEEM; M M FIRDOUZ; A V FIRDOUZ
• Keywords: Assessment orders; Recovery proceedings; Stay petitions; Writ Appeal
• 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 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 9TH KARTHIKA, 1945 WA NO. 1872 OF 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.10.2023 IN WP(C) 34385/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/WRIT PETITIONER: SHAMEEM THARI AGED 41 YEARS S/O ABDUL KAREEM THARI, THARI HOUSE CHENDAPURAYA, ABDU RAHIMAN NAGAR P O, ABDU RAHIMAN NAGAR, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN – 676305 BY ADVS. M.P.SHAMEEM AHAMED AKHIL PHILIP MANITHOTTIYIL DANIYA RASHEED PALLIYALIL NAEEM M.M MUHAMMED FIRDOUZ A.V. RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOZHIKODE AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NORTH BLOCK, NEW ANNEXE BUILDING, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN – 673001 2 THE NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, C-BLOCK, 4TH FLOOR, S.P.M. CIVIC CENTER, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH,SC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: :2: W .A.No.1872 of 2023 JUDGMENT Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. The petitioner in WP(C).No.34385 of 2023 is the appellant herein aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.10.2023 in the Writ Petition. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows: 2. The appellant had impugned Ext.P1 series of assessment orders before this Court in the Writ Petition when confronted with recovery steps for recovery of the amounts confirmed against him by the assessment orders. It was the case of the appellant that against Ext.P1 series of assessment orders he has preferred Ext.P2 series of appeals and Ext.P3 series of stay petitions for the assessment years 2018-2019 to 2021-2022 under the Income Tax Act. The apprehension of the appellant was that even before consideration of the stay petitions there would be recovery steps initiated by the respondents for recovery of the amounts confirmed against the appellant by Ext.P1 series of assessment orders. :3: W .A.No.1872 of 2023 3. The learned Single Judge who considered the matter directed the respondents to consider and pass orders on the stay petitions if it was not possible to finally hear the appeals expeditiously. The learned Single Judge, however, did not grant a stay of recovery proceedings pending disposal of the stay petitions by the respondents. It is for this limited relief that the appellant is before us through the present appeal. 4. We have heard Sri.M.P .Shameem Ahamed, 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 alternate 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 petitions or appeals whichever is earlier by the appellate authority, the recovery proceedings against the appellant for recovery of the amounts confirmed against him by Ext.P1 series of assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance. Save for this limited modification, the rest of the directions in the impugned :4: W .A.No.1872 of 2023 judgment are not interfered with. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE mns "