M/S. ST.MARYS WOOD INDUSTRIES V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

WP(C)/17778/2016

AI Insights

The case involves M/S St. Marys Wood Industries, represented by its proprietrix Jessy Thomas, challenging an order (Ext.P6) passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding a stay petition linked to an appeal for the assessment year 2010-11. The petitioner argued that the demand to pay the entire assessed amount was too harsh, especially when substantial contentions were to be argued in the appeal. The court referenced a prior judgment (Excel Timbers Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax) which influenced the decision, noting that appeals in similar cases were being reserved for orders by a Division Bench. The court's modification of the payment terms was a concession to the ongoing appeal process.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755546 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Excel Timbers Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K M V PANDALAI
• Assessee Lawyers: O NAMBIAR; GEEN MATHEW
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Year 2010-11; Income Tax; Stay Petition
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2016/30TH VAISAKHA, 1938 WP(C).No. 17778 of 2016 (V) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- M/S.ST.MARYS WOOD INDUSTRIES, KUNDANOOR, MARADU POST - 682 304, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRIX JESSY THOMAS. BY ADVS.SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), OFFIE 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. BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: mbr/ WP(C).No. 17778 of 2016 (V) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ----------------------- P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11/12/2014 P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21/4/2015. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN EXHIBIT P2 APPEAL. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24/2/2016 IN WPC NO.7043/2016 -E BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER DATED 11/4/2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL ----------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE mbr/ A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J. ============= W.P. (C) No. 17778 of 2016 =================== Dated this, the 20th day of May, 2016 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P6, an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in a stay petition with reference to an appeal filed against orders passed for assessment year 2010-11. Petitioner submits that as against the judgment of this Court in WP(C) No. 14431/2014 (Excel Timbers Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax), appeals are heard by a Division Bench of this Court and are reserved for orders. In the meantime, when the petitioner has substantial contentions to be urged in the appeal, the authority had called upon the petitioner to remit the entire amount demanded. It is contended that when substantial contentions are urged in the appeal, the direction to pay entire amount is too harsh. 2. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents as well. 3. A perusal of Ext.P6 would clearly indicate that the appellate authority had considered the stay petition on merits. As W.P(C) No.17778/16 -:2:- law stands today, the judgment in Excel Timbers Private Limited (supra) holds the field. Under such circumstances, I do not find any error in the order passed by the appellate authority directing the petitioner to remit the amount demanded. The authority had further granted time to pay the amount in four equal monthly instalments of `3,35,816/- each month, starting from May 2016. 4. Taking into consideration the fact that the appeal against Excel Timbers Private Limited (supra) is reserved for judgment by the Division Bench, I am of the view that some indulgence can be shown to the petitioner to remit the amount and accordingly, Ext.P6 is modified as under. 5. That the payment of `13,43,265/- shall be made in four equal monthly instalments of `3,35,816/- each month, starting from 20/6/2016. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE Rp20/05/2016 //True Copy// P.S to Judge "