By Advs. Harisankar v. Menonmeera V.menon, R.sreejithk.krishna, Parvathy Menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH TUESDAY, THE 21 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1945WA NO. 1996 OF 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.10.2023 IN WP(C) 33098/2023 OFHIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/S: SASHI RAGHAVAN KUMAR, AGED 66 YEARSS/O. RAGHAVAN KUMAR, PATHIRUVELIL HOUSE, MALLAPPALLY, EZHUMATTOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA., PIN - 689586 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENONMEERA V.MENON, R.SREEJITHK.KRISHNA, PARVATHY MENON RESPONDENTS: 1ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICERNATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PIN - 1100012COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, PIN - 110001 SC- SRI.JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON21.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: -:2:- J U D G M E N T Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. The petitioner in WP(C).No. 33098 of 2023 is the appellant hereinaggrieved by the judgment dated 16.10.2023 in the Writ Petition. The brieffacts necessary for disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows: 2. The appellant had impugned Ext.P1 assessment order before thisCourt in the Writ Petition when confronted with recovery steps for recoveryof the amounts confirmed against him by the assessment order. It was thecase of the appellant that against Ext.P1 assessment order he has preferredExt.P2 appeal along with Ext.P3 delay petition and Ext.P4 stay petition forthe assessment year 2018-2019 under the Income Tax Act. Theapprehension of the appellant was that even before consideration of thedelay petition and stay petition there would be recovery steps initiated bythe respondents for recovery of the amounts confirmed against the appellantby Ext.P1assessment order. 3. The learned Single Judge who considered the matter directed therespondents to consider and pass orders on the delay petition and the staypetition if it was not possible to finally hear the appeal expeditiously. Thelearned Single Judge, however, did not grant a stay of recovery proceedingspending disposal of the stay petition by the respondents. It is for this limited relief that the appellant is before us through the present appeal. 4. We have heard Sri. Harisankar V. Menon, the learned counsel forthe appellant and Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing counsel for theIncome Tax Department. 5. In our view, since the learned Single Judge had relegated theappellant to the alternative remedy before the statutory authority it wasincumbent upon the learned Judge to protect the appellant from recoveryproceedings pending disposal of the petitions by the respondent appellateauthority. Accordingly, we modify the impugned judgment of the learnedSingle Judge to the limited extent of clarifying that pending disposal of thestay petition or appeal whichever is earlier by the appellate authority, therecovery proceedings against the appellant for recovery of the amountsconfirmed against him by Ext.P1assessment order shall be kept in abeyance.Save for this limited modification, the rest of the directions in the impugnedjudgment are not interfered with. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp