By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI MONDAY ,THE 01ST DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1941 WA.No. 967 of 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 7546/2019 of THIS COURT APPELLANT/PETITIONER: M/S.POPULAR TRADERS POPULAR TOWERS, VAKAYAR P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, THOMAS DANIEL (AGED 63). BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENONSMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE-I, THIRUVALLA-689101.CIRCLE-I, THIRUVALLA-689101. 2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM-686001.DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM-686001. 3THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER,DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVALLA-689101. OTHER PRESENT: SC,IT DEPARTMENT- SRI. JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: -:2:- C.K. ABDUL REHIM & R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- Writ Appeal No. 967 OF 2019 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1[st] day of April, 2019 J U D G M E N T Abdul Rehim, J. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 7546/2019 is the appellant herein, challenging the judgment dated 15[th] March, 2019dismissing the writ petition. The respondents herein are therespondents in the writ petition. 2.Ext.P4 interim order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Kottayam was challenged in the writpetition. The order impugned was passed by the CIT (Appeals)in a stay petition filed by the appellant, seeking stay of recoveryof the demand of `44,82,72,598/-, pending disposal of theappeal. The demand in question pertains to the assessmentcompleted for the year 2016 - 2017, which was under challenge W.A. No.967/2019 in the appeal. The CIT(Appeals) granted an interim stay, subject to conditions that the appellant shall pay 20% of the demand onor before 15.03.2019. In the writ petition, the said order wasmodified by the learned Single Judge. The condition stipulatedwas reduced to 50% of the amount directed in the order of theCIT(Appeals). The said amount was allowed to be paid in twoinstallments on or before 31.03.2019 and within a period of onemonth thereafter. The CIT(Appeals) was also directed todispose of the appeal expeditiously. 3. Even though various grounds were raised, we do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgmentwarranting interference in this appeal. Hence the writ appeal isliable to be dismissed. However, learned counsel appearing forthe appellant sought for indulgence of this court in extendingthe period stipulated for payment of the amount. It is submittedthat 10% of the entire demand would come to `4,48,27,260/-. Itis also submitted that the appellant had already remitted a sum W.A. No.967/2019 of `14,20,969/- on 27.03.2019. Learned counsel seeks indulgence to permit the appellant to pay the balance due in the first instalment within a short time and to allow further period ofone month for the payment of the second installment, asdirected by the learned Single Judge. 4.Heard; learned Standing Counsel for Government ofIndia(Taxes), who pointed out that, the appellant had failed tocomply with the direction contained in the judgment impugned,which itself was actually an indulgence shown by the learnedSingle Judge. 5.On considering the entire facts and circumstances ofthe case, while dismissing the writ appeal, we are inclined toenlarge the time stipulated for making payment of the amountstipulated. If the appellant deposits the balance amount out ofthe first instalment mentioned in the impugned judgment on orbefore 15.04.2019, the same will be considered as duecompliance of the direction contained in the judgment of the W.A. No.967/2019 learned Single Judge. In case the balance amount out of the 4.Heard; learned Standing Counsel for Government ofIndia(Taxes), who pointed out that, the appellant had failed tocomply with the direction contained in the judgment impugned,which itself was actually an indulgence shown by the learnedSingle Judge. 5.On considering the entire facts and circumstances ofthe case, while dismissing the writ appeal, we are inclined toenlarge the time stipulated for making payment of the amountstipulated. If the appellant deposits the balance amount out ofthe first instalment mentioned in the impugned judgment on orbefore 15.04.2019, the same will be considered as duecompliance of the direction contained in the judgment of the W.A. No.967/2019 learned Single Judge. In case the balance amount out of the first instalment is paid on or before the said date, the appellant shall be permitted to remit the second instalment within onemonth thereafter. The above writ appeal is disposed of as above. Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. Sd/- R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE. ul/- [True copy] P.S. to Judge.