By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menon Smt.meera V.menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 38068 of 2015 (G) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- VINU.V.CHACKO, AGED 38 YEARS, UZHATHIL VALIAPARAMBIL, NALUKODY P.O. CHENGANSSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, THIRUVALLA 689 101. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LILLY K.T. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PJ APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1: COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13. P1(A): COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14.YEAR 2013-14. P2: COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENTRESPONDENT P2(A): COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENTRESPONDENT P3: COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENTRESPONDENT P4: COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS--------------------------------------- NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.38068 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16[th] day of December 2015 JUDGMENT The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P4 order ofthe 2[nd] respondent, whereby the 2[nd] respondent rejected a staypetition filed by the petitioner along with an appeal against theassessment orders for the assessment years 2012-2013 and 2013-14, on the ground that the 2[nd] respondent does not have powersconferred under the Income Tax Act, for considering and passingorders in stay applications filed along with the appeals. It is thesubmission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the standtaken by the 2[nd] respondent is legally flawed in that it is settled lawthat every authority under the Income Tax Act, that is conferredwith a power to decide an appeal, also has an inherent power topass orders in incidental applications, such as an application forstay, that is filed along with the appeals. 2.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner as also the learned Government Pleader appearing forthe respondents. W.P.(C). No.38068 of 2015 On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the caseand the submissions made across the bar, and taking note of thesettled proposition that an authority having the power to decide anappeal under a statutory provision also has the inherent power toconsider and pass orders that are required to be passed to renderthe appellate power effective (See: ITO v Mohammed Kunhi - AIR 1969 SC 430), I dispose the writ petition by quashing Ext.P4order and directing the 2[nd] respondent to consider and pass orderson Ext.P3 stay petition on merits, within a period of two monthsfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearingthe petitioner. I make it clear that till such time as orders arepassed by the 2[nd] respondent as directed and communicated to thepetitioner, coercive steps for recovery of amounts confirmedagainst the petitioner by Exts.P1 and P1(a) assessment orders,shall be kept in abeyance. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE