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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2017/11TH JYAISHTA, 1939 WA.No.901 of 2017 IN WP(C)1239/2017 ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 1239/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED16-01-2017 APPELLANT/APPELLANT: -------------------- M/S.POPULAR TRADERS POPULAR TOWERS, VAKAYAR P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, PRABHA THOMAS. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) AARATTUKULAKKARA COMPLEX, AN PURAM, ALAPPUZHA - 688 011. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. 3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) 3RD FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003. R BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-06-2017ALONG WITH W.A.903/17, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC & K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -W.A.Nos.901 & 903 of 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1[st] day of June, 2017 Antony Dominic, J. JUDGMENT These appeals are filed against the judgment of the learnedSingle Judge in W.P.(C)Nos.1239/17 and 1244/17, which weredisposed of by a common judgment dated 16[th] January 2017. Thechallenge in the writ petitions, which were heard along with W.P.(C)1236/17, was against the interim order passed by the 1[st]Appellate Authority under the Income Tax Act in the appeals filedby the appellant against the orders of assessment concerning theyears 2013-14 to 2016-17. By the judgment under appeal, learnedSingle Judge directed the appellant to remit 15% of the amountassessed as condition for stay and it is this judgment, which isunder challenge before us. 2. We heard the counsel for the appellant and the learnedcounsel appearing for the respondent. : 2 : 3. According to the learned counsel, the learned Single Judgeought not to have required the appellant to remit 15% of theamount having regard to the principles laid down by the AllahabadHigh Court and the provisions contained in the office memo dated29.2.2016. As is evident from the judgment under appeal itselfwhat would have been of assistance to the appellant, was only thejudgment of the Apex Court and the jurisdictional High Court.Therefore this plea was rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge. 4. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the learnedSingle Judge was perfectly justified in requiring the appellant toremit 15% of the disputed demand. Therefore, we do not find anymerit in this appeal. 5. Be that as it may, from the submissions made before us weare informed that a part of the amount due to satisfy the 15% asordered by the learned Single Judge has already been remitted by : 3 : the appellant. Taking note of the above and also the financialconstraints that are projected before us, we allow the appellant aperiod of 8 weeks from today to satisfy the balance amounts that isdue. Subject to the above modification, the appeals are disposed of. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jes Sd/- K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH JUDGE