THE CENTRE FOR MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT, V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS),

WA/646/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Centre for Management Development, Thiruvananthapuram, which appealed against a judgment requiring it to remit 20% of assessed amounts for the assessment years 2018-19 to 2022-23 pending the consideration of its stay applications and delay condonation applications by the First Appellate Authority under the Income Tax Act. The appellant contested the requirement, arguing that it was unjust given the circumstances of the case. The High Court of Kerala, after hearing the arguments and considering the submissions, decided to modify the learned Single Judge's judgment by removing the remittance requirement and directing the 5th respondent to expedite the consideration of the appellant's applications.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 725885 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: NITISH SHENOY; SHERRY OOMMEN; SUKUMAR OOMMEN
• Keywords: Assessment orders; Delay condonation; Income Tax; Stay applications
• Section: 119

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M. MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946 WA NO. 646 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.10745 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT THE CENTRE FOR MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT, THYCAUD S.O. CHEMPAKASSERY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PIN - 695014 BY ADVS. NITISH SATHESH SHENOY SHERRY SAMUEL OOMMEN SUKUMAR NAINAN OOMMEN RESPONDENTS 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), SAN JUAN TOWERS, 2ND FLOOR, BEHIND CR BUILDING OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOCHI, PIN – 682018 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CENTRE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BANGALORE, PIN – 560050 3 THE ADDITIONAL/ JOINT/ DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, 4TH FLOOR, MAYUR BHAWAN, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001 4 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 605003 W.A.No.646 of 2024 2 5 THE NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), MAYUR BHAWAN, CONNAUGHT LANE, BARAKHAMBA, NEW DELHI -REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, PIN – 110001 BY SRI. JOSE JOSEPH -STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.No.646 of 2024 3 J U D G M E N T ============ Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. The appellant has approached this Court aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.03.2024 of a learned Single Judge in W.P(C) No.10745 of 2024. 2. The limited contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge while relegating the appellant to his alternate remedy of pursuing appeals, along with delay condonation applications and stay applications, against the impugned assessment orders for the assessment years 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 under the Income Tax Act, had directed the appellant to remit 20% of the assessed amounts in respect of all the assessment years pending disposal of the stay applications/condonation of delay applications by the First Appellate Authority. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.Sherry Samuel W.A.No.646 of 2024 4 Oommen would point out that the learned Single Judge had directed the 1st respondent to pass orders on the applications preferred by the appellant under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act for condonation of delay in filing returns which was necessary for a consideration of the claim for exemption made by the appellant on merits. The learned Single Judge, however, did not thereafter stay the recovery of the assessed amounts from the appellant for the aforementioned assessment years while directing consideration of stay applications/delay condonation applications preferred by the appellant along with the appeals filed before the First Appellate Authority under the Income Tax Act for the said assessment years. 4. We have also heard Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing counsel for the Income Tax Department. 5. On a consideration of the rival submissions, and finding that the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment has already directed the 1st respondent to dispose Ext.P3 series of applications within a specified time limit, and further that the 1st respondent has already summoned the appellant for a personal hearing in connection with the said applications, we dispose the writ appeal by modifying only the latter part of the impugned W.A.No.646 of 2024 5 judgment of the learned Single Judge that directs the appellant to pay 20% of the assessed amounts pending consideration of the stay applications/delay condonation applications filed by the appellant before the First Appellate Authority (5th respondent) along with the appeals against the assessment order for the assessment years aforementioned. We find this latter direction of the learned Single to be legally unsustainable since the appellant has made out a prima facie case warranting a protection from recovery of the disputed demands pending consideration of the stay applications/condonation of delay applications by the First Appellate Authority. 6. Accordingly, while we maintain that part of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge that directs the 1st respondent to dispose Ext.P3 series of applications within a prescribed time, we modify the latter part of the judgment of the learned Single Judge and direct that the 5th respondent shall consider the stay applications/delay condonation applications preferred by the appellant, along with the appeals against the assessment orders for the assessment years aforementioned, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The recovery of the amounts confirmed against the appellant by the W.A.No.646 of 2024 6 assessment orders impugned in the appeals before the 5th respondent, shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 5th respondent in the delay condonation applications/stay applications referred above. The writ appeal is disposed as above. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/- SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE smm W.A.No.646 of 2024 7 APPENDIX OF WA 646/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 35 APPEAL ALONG WITH ACCOMPANYING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR THE AY 2018-19 Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 35 APPEAL ALONG WITH ACCOMPANYING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR THE AY 2020-21 Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 35 APPEAL ALONG WITH ACCOMPANYING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR THE AY 2022-23 Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF PROOF OF FILING OF THE STAY APPLICATION FOR THE RELEVANT YEARS Annexure A5 A TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO 2 OF 2024 DATED 05.03.2024 Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE CONDONATION APPLICATION DATED 09.04.2024 "