SHRI BHASKARAN THIRUMULPAD M.P. V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/14552/2011

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Bhaskaran Thirumulpad, the petitioner, who challenged the recovery steps initiated by the Income Tax authorities despite an ongoing appeal against the assessment order for the year 2009-2010. The petitioner had previously been granted an installment facility to pay 50% of the tax demand but sought a stay on the recovery of the remaining amount pending the appeal's outcome. The High Court's intervention was sought to expedite the appellate process and stay the recovery actions until the appeal and stay petition were resolved.

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 756012 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH; C K KARUNAKARAN
• Assessee Lawyers: T M SREEDHARAN; C K SHERIN; V P NARAYANAN
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment; Garnishee Order; Income Tax; Recovery Steps; Stay of collection

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2011 / 10TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14552 of 2011(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHRI BHASKARAN THIRUMULPAD.M.P, S/O.K.MANICHANUNNI ERADI,AGED 89 YEARS, HARISREE,THACHAMPARA,PALAKKAD-678593. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SMT.C.K.SHERIN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-I,CALICUT-673001. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-I, SAN JUAN TOWERS,BEHIND C.R.BUILDINGS,OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD,COCHIN-682018. 3. THE MANAGER,THACHAMPARA SERVICE CO-OP; BANK LTD.,THACHAMPARA,PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678593. 4. THE MANAGER,DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD, THACHAMPARA BRANCH,PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678593. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH – SC SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.14552 of 2011-T ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment finalised against the petitioner with respect to the year 2009-2010, the petitioner had preferred statutory appeal before the 2nd respondent, as per Ext.P2. Along with the appeal an application seeking stay of collection of the tax amount in dispute was also submitted as per Ext.P3. Meanwhile, the petitioner had approached the 1st respondent assessing authority requesting to keep in abeyance the recovery steps. Through Ext.P4 order, the said authority had stayed collection of 50% of the total demand, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting balance 50% in monthly instalments of Rs.3 lakhs each. Grievance of the petitioner is that without considering pendency of the appeal and the stay petition before the 2nd respondent, recovery steps has now been initiated and notices were issued to respondents 3 and 4 requiring payment of amounts due from the Bank accounts maintained by the petitioner with those respondents. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is seeking direction from this Court to the W.P(C) No.14552 of 2011-T 2 appellate authority to dispose of the appeal on an early basis and till then to stay the recovery steps. 2. Heard; standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. It is noticed that the appeal filed against the order of assessment is pending disposal before the appellate authority. Under such circumstances, I am not proposing to enter upon any findings regarding the merits of the contentions raised against sustainability or correctness of the assessment. It is further noticed that the appellate authority has not considered the application filed seeking stay. It is evident from Ext.P4 that the assessing authority has granted some instalment facility to the petitioner for effecting payment of 50% of the amount. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that interest of justice will be served if a direction is issued to the appellate authority to have an early disposal of the matter. 3. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 stay petition, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at W.P(C) No.14552 of 2011-T 3 any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, provided the petitioner remits a sum of Rs.3 lakhs being the 1st instalment as stipulated in Ext.P4, on or before 15.6.2011. 4. If the amount stipulated as above is paid, then the 2nd respondent shall pass appropriate orders on the stay petition within the time stipulated as above. 5. It is made clear that, if payment of amount as stipulated above is made, then further recovery steps shall be kept in abeyance till a decision is taken on the stay petition. 6. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be permitted to operate the Bank accounts despite the Garnishee orders issued to respondents 3 and 4, till then. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab "