M/S. WHITE METAL ALUMINIUM TRADING COMPANY V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/6583/2018

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. White Metal Aluminium Trading Company, represented by its managing partner, Beeru, who filed a writ petition against the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner was aggrieved by an assessment order and had filed an appeal and a stay petition, both of which were delayed by ten days. The primary grievance in the writ petition was the delay by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deciding on the condonation of delay and the stay application, which had allowed proceedings for the realization of the assessed amounts to commence. The court's intervention was sought to expedite these decisions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755327 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: P N NAMBOODIRI; P UNNIKRISHNAN
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Condonation of delay; Income Tax; Stay Application
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 6583 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) M/S. WHITE METAL ALUMINIUM TRADING COMPANY AZHIKODE, KODUNGALLUR-680 666, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER BEERU. BY ADVS.SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI SRI.P.UNNIKRISHNAN (THRISSUR) RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), O/O THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR-680 004. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) O/O THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEPT. OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR-680 004. R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 6583 of 2018 (W) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO. AABFW7107R/W-2(2)/TCR DATED 28-011-2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF FIRST APPEAL IN FORM 35 DATED 01-01-2018 FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 01-01-2018 FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL BY WAY OF E-FILING DATED 15-01-2018 FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.A. TO JUDGE SKS P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No. 6583 of 2018 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th day of February, 2018 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an assessee under the Income T ax Act (the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the second respondent. There was a delay of ten days in filing the appeal. It is stated that the petitioner has preferred an application for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. Ext.P3 is the application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2 appeal. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the second respondent in passing orders on the application for condonation of delay and Ext.P3 application for stay. It is alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition that proceedings have already been initiated for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 order. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition. W.P. (c) No.6583/2018 -2- 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 the application for condonation of delay, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say that if the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, orders shall be passed on the application for stay preferred by the petitioner also within the aforesaid time. Needless also to say that until orders are passed on the application for condonation of delay or the application for stay, as the case may be, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by the assessment order shall be deferred. sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. SKS "