Sunny Silks V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1) and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre and Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax DCIT Circle 1(1)

WA/2021/2023

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Sunny Silks, a dealer in textiles and readymade garments, who challenged the conditions imposed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (3rd respondent) in the order under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant had previously filed an appeal against the assessment order for the year 2017-18 and sought relief from the High Court regarding the condition to remit 20% of the tax demand. The Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition led to this appeal. The court upheld the decision, emphasizing that the merits of the tax addition would be considered at the appeal's disposal and that the appellant could seek a stay through the Appellate Authority.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 681312 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P G KEERTHIVAS GIRI
• Assessee Lawyers: K J JOHN ARAVINDAKSHAN; K R AKHIL SHAJI
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Income Tax; Stay Application; Condition for Default
• Section: 145A; 220(6)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023/2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1945 WA NO. 2021 OF 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT WP(C) 37823/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: M/S. SUNNY SILKS XXVIII/ 616A, CONVENT ROAD, CHALAKUDY P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT . REPRESENTED BY PARTNER REENA DAVIS, W/O. SUNNY P.C, AGED 43 YEARS, PANJIKARAN HOUSE, MUPLIYAM POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680307 BY ADVS.K.J.ABRAHAM NIKHIL JOHN ARAVINDAKSHAN K.R. AKHIL SHAJI RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: 1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SHAKTHANTHAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680001 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 3 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), & TPS, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SHAKTHANTHAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680001 BY ADVS.ADV. P.G. JAYASHANKAR KEERTHIVAS GIRI THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA No.2021/2023 -:2:- J U D G M E N T Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J. This writ appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.37823/2023 dated 15th November, 2023. 2. The appellant is a dealer in textile and readymade garments and an assessee under the Income T ax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the IT Act'). Against the Ext.P4 assessment order for the year 2017-18, the appellant preferred Ext.P5 appeal before the 2nd respondent. In the meanwhile, the appellant also moved an application under Section 220(6) of the IT Act before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent passed Ext.P11 order directing the appellant to remit 20% of the demand as a condition for treating him as a person not in default. The appellant filed the writ petition challenging the condition imposed in Ext.P11 order. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge dismissed the WA No.2021/2023 -:3:- writ petition. The said judgment is under challenge before us. 3. We have heard Sri.Abraham K. J., the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.P .G.Jayashankar, the learned standing counsel for the Income T ax. 4. The finding of the 3rd respondent in the impugned order that the question of addition under Section 145A of the IT Act is to be considered at the time of disposal of the appeal is perfectly valid. The merit in the addition can only be considered at the time of disposal of the appeal. In these circumstances, the impugned order imposing conditions for granting an order under Section 220(6) of the IT Act does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The appellant has already challenged Ext.P4 assessment order in appeal before the 2nd respondent/Appellate Authority. The appellant can very well move a stay application before the Appellate Authority seeking the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. We see no illegality in the impugned judgment. However, if the appellant files a stay application before the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent shall consider and dispose of either the said stay application or the appeal itself within a period WA No.2021/2023 -:4:- of three weeks from the receipt of the application from the appellant, after hearing the appellant. The writ appeal is disposed of as above. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE Rp "