SPERIDIEN TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA

WP(C)/10835/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Speridian Technologies (P) Ltd., the petitioner, who is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, contesting an assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner filed an appeal against the assessment order and concurrently submitted a stay application. The primary grievance in the writ petition was the delay by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in deciding the stay application, which allegedly allowed proceedings for the realization of the assessed amounts to continue. The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, presided by Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar, heard the matter and issued directions to expedite the decision on the stay application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 744600 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: M NAMBIAR; P GOPINATH
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income Tax; Realisation of amounts; Stay Petition
• Section: 143(3); 92CA; 144C

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1940 WP(C).No. 10835 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) SPERIDIAN TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD. G-2, THEJASWINI BUILDING, TECHNOPARK CAMPUS, KARYAVATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HRISHIKESH. S. BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SRI.RAJA KANNAN RESPONDENT(S): 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE), NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003. 3. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, 1ST FLOOR, BLOCK C-I & C-II, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, KERALA - 682 037, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. R BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 10835 of 2018 (D) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.04.2017 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 92CA AND 144C OF THE ACT, FOR THE A.Y.2013-14. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM (WITHOUT ANNEXURES) DATED 30.06.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 22.03.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.A. TO JUDGE SKS P .B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P .(C).No.10835 of 2018 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th 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 second respondent. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the third respondent. Ext.P3 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 third respondent in passing orders on Ext.P3 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. 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 W.P. (c) No. 10835/2018 -2- directing the third respondent to take a decision on Ext.P3 application 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 Ext.P3 application for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 assessment order shall be deferred. Sd/- P .B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. SKS "