MATHEW K. CHERIAN V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/8016/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Mathew K. Cherian, the petitioner, who is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, contesting an assessment order issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kottayam. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order, which was delayed by four days. To address this delay, the petitioner submitted an application for condonation of delay and a stay petition. The writ petition was filed due to the alleged inaction of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) III in deciding on these applications, which led to the initiation of proceedings for the realization of the assessed amounts. The court's decision aimed to expedite the resolution of these procedural applications to prevent further financial actions against the petitioner.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 697338 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2018
• 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; V P NARAYANAN; DIVYA RAVINDRAN
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Condonation of delay; Income Tax; Stay Application
• Section: 220(6)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 8016 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) SHRI.MATHEW K. CHERIAN S/O. CHERIAN, AGED 62 YEARS, KOSAMATTAM HOUSE, MANGANAM P.O, KOTTAYAM 686 018 BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM 686 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) III 28/243,\"POORNIMA\", NEAR MANORAMA JUNCTION, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI 682 036 R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 8016 of 2018 (B) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31-12-2017 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2015-16 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 5-2-2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 7-2-2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2(B) TRUE COPY OF PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILLING THE APPEAL DATED 5-2-2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U/S. 220(6) DATED 19-02-2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.A. TO JUDGE SKS P .B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P .(C).No.8016 of 2018 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th 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 Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the second respondent. There was a delay of four days in instituting the appeal. The petitioner, therefore, preferred Ext.P2(b) application for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. Ext.P2(a) is the application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2 appeal. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the second respondent in passing orders on Ext.P2(b) application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and Ext.P2(a) application 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 Ext.P1 order. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition. W.P. (c) No.8016/18 -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 the application for condonation of delay within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say that if the delay in preferring the appeals is condoned, orders shall be passed on the applications for stay preferred by the petitioner also within the time stipulated. Needless also to say that until orders are passed on the application for condonation of delay or the application for stay, as the case may be, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by assessment order shall be deferred. Sd/- P .B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. SKS "