T. ABHILASH CHANDRAN V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/12692/2016

AI Insights

The case involves T. Abhilash Chandran, the petitioner, who challenged a conditional stay order issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Ernakulam, concerning assessment orders for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11. The petitioner argued that the discretion was not validly exercised in the stay application. The court reviewed the merits of the case, considering the submissions and the financial hardship claimed by the petitioner. The court upheld the conditional stay order, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to pay a portion of the arrears to proceed with the appeal on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 758791 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-04-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K M V PANDALAI
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISANKAR MENON; MEERA MENON
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Financial hardship; Income Tax; Stay Petition
• Section: 226

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2016/12TH CHAITHRA, 1938 WP(C).No. 12692 of 2016 (J) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- T. ABHILASH CHANDRAN, 11/453, KONAKUPPAKKATTIL HOUSE, VELLASSERY, POOZHIKKOL P.O., KOTTAY AM-686 604. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON, SMT.MEERA V.MENON. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, ALFA-LIZA BUILDING, CHITTOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM-11. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V, ERNAKULAM-682 016. 3. THE TAX OFFICER (CENTRAL), OFFICE OF THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, 5TH FLOOR, KANDAMKULATHI TOWERS, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.V.P ANDALAI, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. WP(C).No. 12692 of 2016 (J) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2009-10 DATED 30.03.2015. EXHIBIT P1(A): COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 30.03.2015. EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2009-10 DATED 05.09.2015. EXHIBIT P2(A): COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 05.09.2015. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2009-10 DATED 05.09.2015. EXHIBIT P3(A): COPY OF STAY PETITION FLED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 05.09.2015. EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.03.2016. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. =========================================== W.P.(C). No. 12692 of 2016 ===================================================== Dated this the 1st day of April, 2016 JUDGMENT The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P4 conditional order of stay passed in relation to the petitioner under the Income Tax Act, in a stay application filed along with an appeal against assessment orders for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. It is the case of the petitioner in the writ petition that, while passing Ext.P4 order, the 2nd respondent did not exercise his discretion validly. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department. 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find from Ext.P4 order that the 2nd respondent, while passing the said order, has considered the submissions of the petitioner on merits and has given reasons for directing the petitioner to pay 25% of the outstanding arrears on or before 31.03.2016. Under the said circumstances, I am of the view that Ext.P4 order does not call for -2- W.P.(C). No. 12692 of 2016 any interference in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition in its challenge against Ext.P4 order therefore fails and is accordingly, dismissed. Taking note of the plea of financial hardship urged on behalf of the petitioner, I direct that, if the petitioner pays the amount directed to be paid in Ext.P4 order in four equal and successive monthly installments commencing from 20.04.2016, then the same shall be treated as in compliance with the directions in Ext.P4 order and the 2nd respondent shall proceed with the appeal on merits, thereafter. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for further action. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE das /01.04.2016 "