V.SHAREEF V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/12397/2018

AI Insights

The case involves V. Shareef, the petitioner, who is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, contesting the delay by the second respondent in deciding on his stay applications related to several assessment orders from 2008-09 to 2014-15. The petitioner had filed appeals against these assessments and concurrently filed stay applications. The primary grievance was the delay in the decision-making process regarding these stay applications, which the petitioner argued was affecting the realization of the assessed amounts. The court, after hearing the arguments, decided to intervene and set a timeline for the second respondent to resolve the pending stay applications.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 697492 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-04-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: P RAGHUNATH; PREMJIT NAGENDRAN; M SHYLAJA
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Delay in Decision; Demand notice; Income Tax; Stay Petition
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1940 WP(C).No. 12397 of 2018 PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER V.SHAREEF 'EXCEL PLAZA'., KODAMPUZHA ROAD, PETTA, FEROKE, CALICUT-673631. BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN SMT.M.SHYLAJA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOZHIKODE 673001. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX(APPELAS) III KOCHI-682036. 3. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , ERNAKULAM-682018. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 12397 of 2018 (Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF COMMON ORDER DATED 19.2.2018 IN WPC NOS.4440, 4448, 4449/18 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR 2008.09. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE FOR 2008.09 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE FOR 2009.10 EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE FOR 2010.11 EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE FOR 2011.12 EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE FOR 2012.13 EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE FOR 2013.14 EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE FOR 2014.15 EXHIBIT P10 APPEAL AGAINST ASSESSMENT FOR 2008.09 EXHIBIT P11 APPEAL AGAINST ASSESSMENT FOR 2009.10 EXHIBIT P12 APPEAL AGAINST ASSESSMENT FOR 2010.11 EXHIBIT P13 APPEAL AGAINST ASSESSMENT FOR 2011.12 EXHIBIT P14 APPEAL AGAINST ASSESSMENT FOR 2012.13 EXHIBIT P15 APPEAL AGAINST ASSESSMENT FOR 2013.14 EXHIBIT P16 APPEAL AGAINST ASSESSMENT FOR 2014.15 EXHIBIT P17 COPY OF STAY PETITION FOR 2008.09 EXHIBIT P18 COPY OF STAY PETITION FOR 2009.10 EXHIBIT P19 COPY OF STAY PETITION FOR 2010.11 EXHIBIT P20 COPY OF STAY PETITION FOR 2011.12 EXHIBIT P21 COPY OF STAY PETITION FOR 2012.13 EXHIBIT P22 COPY OF STAY PETITION FOR 2013.14 EXHIBIT P23 COPY OF STAY PETITION FOR 2014.15 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- PA TO JUDGE rsr P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.12397 of 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of April, 2018 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act (the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. Aggrieved by Ext.P2 and similar orders of assessment under section 153A of the Act for the years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15, the petitioner preferred Exts.P10 to P16 appeals before the second respondent. Exts.P17 to P23 are the applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in the said appeals. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the second respondent in passing orders on the said aplications for stay. Exts.P3 to P9 are the demand notices issued to the petitioner while completing the assessments referred to above. It is alleged by the petitioner that proceedings have already been W.P.(c).No.12397 of 2018 : 2 : initiated for realisation of the amounts covered by assessment orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to take a decision on Exts.P17 to P23 applications for stay, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say that until orders are passed on Exts.P17 to P23 applications for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P3 to P9 demand notices shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE rsr "