SHRI VEERON VINCENT V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/9323/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Veeron Vincent, the petitioner, who is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, contesting the delay in the decision-making process regarding his stay applications on the assessment orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Thrissur. The petitioner had filed appeals against the assessment orders for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, along with stay applications, which were pending decision by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -III. The petitioner sought the High Court's intervention due to the initiation of proceedings for the realization of the assessed amounts before the stay applications were decided.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755261 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: V P NARAYANAN
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income Tax; Realisation of amounts; Stay Petition
• Section: 220(6)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 9323 of 2018 PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER SHRI VEERON VINCENT S/O.VINCENT.A.F., AGED 38 YEARS, AVOUTHOODAN HOUSE, PALAKKAL, PALAYAM .P.O., VENGINISSERY, THRISSUR - 680 563. BY ADV.SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR -680 004. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -III 28/243, POORNIMA, NEAR MANORAMA JUNCTION, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI -682 036. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 9323 of 2018 (M) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/11/2017 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2013-14 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/11/2017 ALONG DEMAND NOTICE FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2014-15 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 01/01/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2013-14. EXHIBIT P3(A)- TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 12/03/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2013-14. EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 01/01/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST YEAR 2014-15. EXHIBIT P4(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 12/03/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2014-15. EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/03/2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. (true copy) Sd/- P.S. to Judge P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.9323 of 2018 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 19th March, 2018. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax 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 the 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. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as WPC No. 9323/18 2 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. This shall be done untrammelled by the orders, if any, passed by the competent authorities under the Act in exercise of their powers under sub-section (6) of Section 220 of the Act. 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. tgs "