Wa/1916/2023 Of Kunnappilly Builders Ll.p v. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 3 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1945 WA NO. 1916 OF 2023AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.10.2023 IN WP(C) 33187/2023 OFHIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: KUNNAPPILLY BUILDERS LL.P 40/1803, N2, FLAT NO.7C, SAMUDRA DARSHAN APARTMENT, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI, KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MS. SREEDEVI GOPALAKRISHNAN, PIN – 682011 BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SMT.TELMA RAJU SRI.AADITYA NAIR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICERINCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PIN – 110001 2COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001 NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), 3THE INCOME TAX OFFICERPIN - 682018 CORPORATE WARD 1 (1), KOCHI, WA. No.1916 of 2023 BY SRI JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON03.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. Against Ext.P1 assessment order for the assessment years 2015-2016 under the Income Tax Act, the appellant had preferred Ext.P2appeal and Ext.P3 application for stay of recovery pending disposal ofthe appeal. When recovery steps were initiated by the respondentsduring the pendency of the statutory appeal and stay application, theappellant approached the writ court through WP(C).No.33187 of 2023,which was disposed by a learned Single Judge by judgment dated17.10.2023 relegating the appellant to the alternate remedy of appealand directing the Appellate Authority to dispose the stay application orthe appeal within a period of two months. In the appeal before us, theappellant impugns the said judgment of the learned Single Judge solelyon the ground that while disposing the Writ Petition, the learned SingleJudge did not grant a stay of recovery proceedings till such time as theFirst Appellate Authority considered the stay application/appeal asdirected by the learned Single Judge. 2. We have heard Sri.Anil D.Nair, the learned counsel for theappellant and Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing counsel for the Income Tax Department. 3. In our view, since the learned Single Judge had relegated theappellant to the alternate remedy before the statutory authority it wasincumbent upon the learned Judge to protect the appellant fromrecovery proceedings pending disposal of the application by therespondent appellate authority. Accordingly, we modify the impugnedjudgment of the learned Single Judge to the limited extent of clarifyingthat pending disposal of the stay application or appeal whichever isearlier, by the appellate authority, the recovery proceedings against theappellant for recovery of the amounts confirmed against him by Ext.P1assessment order shall be kept in abeyance. Save for this limitedmodification, the rest of the directions in the impugned judgment arenot interfered with. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE mns