SHRI VAKAYIL ABDUL SALEEM V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/6480/2014

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Vakayil Abdul Saleem, the petitioner, challenging the condition imposed by the appellate authority requiring him to pay 50% of his tax liability in five equal monthly installments as a precondition for considering his appeal against an assessment order. The assessment order, which was contested, demanded a tax payment for the year 2010-11. The petitioner had previously approached the court to stay coercive proceedings, leading to the current appeal. The court's decision allows the petitioner additional time to comply with the payment schedule while ensuring that the appeal is considered expeditiously.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 763308 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: WP(C).NO. 21675 OF 2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: T M SREEDHARAN; M B PRAJITH; V P NARAYANAN; DIVYA RAVINDRAN
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Income Tax; Monthly Installments; Stay Petition

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY , THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/23RD PHALGUNA, 1935 WP(C).No. 6480 of 2014 (H) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SHRI VAKAYIL ABDUL SALEEM, \"SWAPNAKOODU\", BEHIND SITARA AUDITORIUM, PALLIPURAM ROAD, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD-679 303. BY SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADVS. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH, SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN, SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V, 6TH FLOOR, KERA BHAV AN, S.R.V.H.S. ROAD, KOCHI-682 011. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. WP(C).No. 6480 of 2014 (H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.03.2013 ALONG WITH THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 22.03.2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. P2: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 06.04.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2(A): COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 19.08.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.09.2013 IN WP(C).NO. 21675 OF 2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ITA 15/PKD/CIT(A)/V/2013-14 DATED 13.11.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 6480 of 2014 (H) ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of March, 2014 JUDGMENT Correctness and sustainability of the condition imposed by the appellate authority as per Ext.P4 order, directing the petitioner to satisfy 50% of the liability by way of 'five' equal monthly installments commencing from November 2013, up to March 2014, is under challenge in this writ petition. 2.The sequence of events reveals that, Ext.P1 assessment order is under challenge before the second respondent, by way of Ext.P2 appeal, along with Ext.P2 (a) petition for stay. In view of the coercive proceedings, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.21675 of 2013, which was disposed of, as per Ext.P3 judgment dated 02.09.2013, directing the appellate authority to pass W.P.(C) NO. 6480 of 2014 (H) 2 appropriate orders on Ext.P2(a). It was accordingly, that Ext.P4 order was passed by the second respondent, imposing the condition as above. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already satisfied the initial three installments and only two more are remaining. The prayer is to cause the appeal itself to be considered and disposed of, since it is pending for more than one year. The learned standing counsel for the Department submits that the discretion has been properly exercised by the appellate authority and that the petitioner did not have any grievance so far, who admittedly satisfied three installments. 4.After hearing both the sides and also the submission made by the learned counsel, the petitioner is granted some more time to satisfy the remaining installments. Accordingly, the 4th installment shall be satisfied by the petitioner on or before 30th of this Month to be followed W.P.(C) NO. 6480 of 2014 (H) 3 by the next one, on or before the 30th of April, 2014. 5.Subject to this modification, the writ petition is disposed of. It is for the appellate authority to pass final orders in the appeal, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. On satisfaction of 50% of the total liability, as ordered in Ext.P4, realisation of the balance amount shall be kept in abeyance till finalisation of the appeal as aforesaid. The writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE AMV/15/3/ "