SHRI.M.A.MOHAMMED ALI V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/10187/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Shri M.A. Mohammed Ali, the petitioner, who is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, contesting the delay by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III in deciding his stay applications related to two assessment orders for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2015-16. The petitioner had filed appeals against the assessment orders and concurrently submitted stay petitions. The core issue was the alleged inaction of the second respondent in addressing these stay petitions, which led to the initiation of proceedings for the realization of the assessed amounts. The petitioner sought judicial intervention to expedite the decision-making process regarding his stay applications.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755249 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: T M SREEDHARAN; DIVYA RAVINDRAN; V P NARAYANAN
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Income Tax; Realisation of amounts; Stay Petition
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 2ND CHAITHRA,1940 WP(C).No. 10187 of 2018 PETITIONER SHRI.M.A.MOHAMMED ALI, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN,AGED 43 YEARS,104/6,MANAKKAL PADATH PADINAJRETHIL HOUSE,ATHIKAPARAMBU,CHERUTHURUTHY.P.O, THRISSUR-679531. BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,THRISSUR-680001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III, 28/243,\"POORNIMA\",NEAR MANORAMA JUNCTION,PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682036. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 10187 of 2018 (W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.12.2017 ALONG WITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND DEMAND NOTICE PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2013-14 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.12.2017 ALONG WITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND DEMAND NOTICE PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2015-16 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 31.1.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2013-14 EXHIBITP 3(A) TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 12.3.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2013-14 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 31.1.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2015-16 EXHIBIT P4(A) TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 12.3.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2015-16. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- PA TO JUDGE rsr P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10187 of 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2018 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an assessee under the Income T ax Act (the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. Aggrieved by Exts.P1 and P2 assessment orders, the petitioner preferred Exts.P3 and P4 appeals before the second respondent. Exts.P3(a) and P4(a) are the applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in Exts.P3 and P4 appeals. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the second respondent in passing orders on Exts.P3(a) and P4(a) applications for stay. It is alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition that proceedings have already been initiated for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P1 and P2 orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition. W.P.(c).No.10187 of 2018 : 2 : 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to take a decision on Exts.P3(a) and P4(a) applications for stay, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say that until orders are passed on Exts.P3(a) and P4(a) applications for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P1 and P2 assessment orders shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE rsr "