Wa/1752/2023 Of M/S Sheikh Sons v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mayos

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH MONDAY, THE 9 DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 17TH ASWINA, 1945WA NO. 1752 OF 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.9.2023 IN WP(C) 28750/2023 OFHIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: M/S SHEIKH SONS, TRIDENT ARCADE, PINANGODE ROAD, KALPETTA VIA, WAYANAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGINGPARTNER C.K. USMAN, PIN - 673121 BY ADV S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MAYOS, SULTHAN BATHERY, KAINATTY, KALPETTA, WAYANAD, PIN - 673122BATHERY, KAINATTY, KALPETTA, WAYANAD, PIN - 673122 2ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTREINCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, E- RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003 3COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, E- RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003 -:2:- 4THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXAAYAKAR BHAVAN, NORTH BLOCK, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673001AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NORTH BLOCK, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673001 SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON09.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.28750 of 2023 is the appellantherein, aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.9.2023 of thelearned Single Judge in the writ petition. 2.The limited prayer of the appellant in the writ appealis for a direction to the respondents not to proceed with therecovery proceedings for recovery of the tax and penaltyamounts pending disposal of the delay condonationapplication/stay application pending before the 3[rd] respondent,which were directed to be disposed of by the learned SingleJudge in the impugned judgment. It is the specific case of thelearned counsel for the appellant that, although the learnedSingle Judge has allowed the writ petition by directing the 3[rd]respondent to consider the delay condonation application andthe stay application, the learned Judge did not deem itappropriate to grant stay of recovery proceedings till such timethe 3[rd] respondent considered the delay condonation applicationand the stay application pending before him. W.A.No.1752/2023 3. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department,we are of the view that inasmuch as the learned Judge hadrelegated the appellant to his remedy before the appellateauthority (the 3[rd] respondent), it was necessary to protect theappellant from recovery proceedings in the meanwhile forotherwise the whole exercise before the appellate authoritywould have been rendered futile. We therefore, allow this appeal to the limited extent ofdirecting that, pending the consideration by the 3[rd] respondent,of the delay condonation application and the stay application asdirected by the learned Single Judge in the judgment impugnedin the writ appeal, there shall be a stay of recovery proceedingsby the respondents against the appellant. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE