Wexco Homes Private Ltd. V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

WA/238/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Wexco Homes Private Ltd., the appellant, who challenged the recovery steps initiated against them following an order (Ext.P1) confirming certain tax demands. The appellant had filed an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P3) with the Appellate Authority (2nd respondent) but faced immediate coercive recovery actions. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition but directed the appellate authority to decide on the stay petition within four months, without staying the recovery proceedings. The appellant contested this decision, leading to the current appeal, where the division bench found it necessary to protect the appellant from recovery actions pending the decision on the stay petition by the appellate authority.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 796072 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH; SUSIE VARGHESE
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISANKAR MENON; K KRISHNA; MEERA MENON; PARVATHY MENON; R SREEJITH
• Keywords: Income Tax; Recovery proceedings; Stay Petition; Writ Appeal

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 FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1945 WA NO. 238 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 2.2.2024 WP(C) 3483/2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: M/S. WEXCO HOMES PRIVATE LTD., PARAYIL HOUSE, THELLAKAM P.O,. KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.H. BABU ANSARI, PIN - 686630 BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENON K.KRISHNA, MEERA V.MENON PARVATHY MENON R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN RAILWAY STATION ROAD KOLLAM, PIN - 691001 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) APPEAL (3), C.R. BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682018 sc-JOSE JOSEPH. SC SMT SUSIE B VARGHESE THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.No.238/2024 -:2:- J U D G M E N T Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2024 Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J. The petitioner in WP(C).No. 3483 of 2024 is the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 02.02.2024 in the Writ Petition. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows: 2. The appellant had impugned Ext.P1 order before this Court in the writ petition when confronted with recovery steps for recovery of the amounts confirmed against it by the order. It was the case of the appellant that against Ext.P1 order, it has preferred Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext. P3 stay petition before the 2nd respondent, the Appellate Authority. In the meantime, coercive steps were taken for realisation of the demands. Therefore, the appellant preferred WP(C) No. 3483 of 2024 before this Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ W.A.No.238/2024 -:3:- petition, however, with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in the stay petition within a period of four months. The learned Single Judge, however, did not grant stay of recovery proceedings. 3. We have heard Sri. Harisankar V. Menon, the learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Susie B. Varghese, the learned Standing counsel for the Income Tax Department. 4. In our view, since the learned Single Judge had relegated the appellant to the alternative remedy before the statutory authority, it was incumbent upon the learned Judge to protect the appellant from recovery proceedings pending disposal of the petitions by the respondent appellate authority. Accordingly, we modify the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge to the limited extent of clarifying that pending disposal of the stay petitions or appeals whichever is earlier by the appellate authority, the recovery proceedings against the appellant for recovery of the amounts confirmed against it by Ext.P1 order shall be kept in abeyance. Save for this limited W.A.No.238/2024 -:4:- modification, the rest of the directions in the impugned judgment are not interfered with. The writ appeal is disposed of as above. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp "