M/S. ST.ALPHONSA TIMBER & TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITEXD V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

WA/1385/2016

AI Insights

M/s. St.Alphonsa Timber & Traders Private Limited, represented by its managing director Jessy Thomas, filed writ appeals against the orders passed by the first appellate authority under the Income Tax Act, which mandated the payment of a disputed amount in installments. The High Court's single judge had previously upheld this order but granted more time for compliance. The appellants argued that the pending appeal against a related judgment provided them a prima facie case for a stay on the payment order. However, the court found no merit in this argument, affirming the appellate authority's decision and the single judge's order. The court also provided a new schedule for the payment of installments, considering the pendency of the appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699292 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Excel Timbers Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (W.P(C).141431/14 and other cases)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K M V PANDALAI
• Assessee Lawyers: O NAMBIAR; GREEN MATH
• Keywords: Income Tax; Installment Payment; TDS; Writ Appeal

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2016/3RD SRAVANA, 1938 WA.No. 1385 of 2016 () IN WP(C).17750/2016 -------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 17750/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 20.5.2016 APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: ----------------------- M/S. ST.ALPHONSA TIMBER & TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED KUNDANOOR, MARADU POST-682 304, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR JESSY THOMAS. BY ADVS.SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR SRI.GEEN T.MATH EW RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), KOCHI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, C.R.BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 018. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) III OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)III, 1ST FLOOR, POORNIMA, 28/243, NEAR MANORAMA JUNCTION, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 036. R BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-07-2016, ALONG WITH WA. 1387/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. ----------------------------------- W.A.Nos.1385, 1387, 1388 & 1393 of 2016 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of July, 2016 JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. 1. Appellants filed the writ petitions impugning the orders passed by the first appellate authority under the Income Tax Act, whereby, the disputed amount was ordered to be paid in instalments. Except in W.A.1393/16, where the judgment in W.P(C).17762/16 is under challenge, in all other cases, learned single Judge upheld the order but granted more time to comply with the same. In so far as W.P(C).17762/16 is concerned, order was modified and the reduced amount was ordered to be paid in 4 instalments. It is aggrieved by these judgments, the appeals are filed. 2.We heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 3.Reading of the order passed by the appellate authority itself shows that the issue canvassed by WA.1385/16 & con. cases 2 the appellants is already answered against them in the judgment in Excel Timbers Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (W.P(C).141431/14 and other cases). However, the contention raised by the appellants is that against the said judgment, an appeal filed by the assessee is pending consideration of this Court and therefore, they have a prima facie case entitling them for an order of stay. We are unable to agree with this contention. The fact that an appeal is pending does not mean that the efficacy of the judgment is lost in any manner. Therefore, the view taken by the first appellate authority cannot be said to be wrong and hence, learned single Judge is also justified in taking the view as in the judgments under appeal. Therefore, the writ appeals are devoid of merit and are dismissed. By the judgments under appeal, the instalments allowed by the learned single Judge had to be commenced on 20.6.2016. It is the case of the appellants that having regard to the pendency of these appeals, such payments were not made in anticipation of favourable orders. Now that we have WA.1385/16 & con. cases 3 confirmed the judgments under appeal, we feel it is only just that the appellants are allowed a breathing time to commence payment of the 4 instalments. Accordingly, we direct that the appellants shall pay the first instalment on or before 19.8.2016 and the subsequent instalments on or before 20.9.2016, 18.10.2016 and 21.11.2016. It is directed that if payments are made as above, that will be treated as having made in compliance with the orders passed by the first appellate authority and the appellate authority shall consider the appeals pending before it on merits and pass orders thereon. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge. Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, Judge. kkb. /True copy/ PS to Judge "