Wa/2021/2023 Of M/S. Sunny Silks v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 23 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023/2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1945 WA NO. 2021 OF 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT WP(C) 37823/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALAAPPELLANT/PETITIONER: M/S. SUNNY SILKSXXVIII/ 616A, CONVENT ROAD, CHALAKUDY P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT . REPRESENTED BY PARTNER REENA DAVIS, W/O. SUNNY P.C, AGED 43 YEARS, PANJIKARAN HOUSE, MUPLIYAM POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680307BY ADVS.K.J.ABRAHAMNIKHIL JOHNARAVINDAKSHAN K.R.AKHIL SHAJI RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: 1ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE 2(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SHAKTHANTHAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 6800012COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), INCOME TAXDEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI, PIN - 1100013DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXDCIT CIRCLE 1(1), & TPS, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SHAKTHANTHAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680001BY ADVS.ADV. P.G. JAYASHANKAR KEERTHIVAS GIRITHIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON23.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: -:2:- J U D G M E N T Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J. This writ appeal has been filed challenging the judgment ofthe learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.37823/2023 dated 15[th]November, 2023. 2.The appellant is a dealer in textile and readymadegarments and an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (forshort, 'the IT Act'). Against the Ext.P4 assessment order for theyear 2017-18, the appellant preferred Ext.P5 appeal before the2[nd] respondent. In the meanwhile, the appellant also moved anapplication under Section 220(6) of the IT Act before the 3[rd]respondent. The 3[rd] respondent passed Ext.P11 order directingthe appellant to remit 20% of the demand as a condition fortreating him as a person not in default. The appellant filed thewrit petition challenging the condition imposed in Ext.P11 order.After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge dismissed the WA No.2021/2023 writ petition. The said judgment is under challenge before us. 3.We have heard Sri.Abraham K. J., the learned counselfor the appellant and Sri.P.G.Jayashankar, the learned standingcounsel for the Income Tax. 4.The finding of the 3[rd] respondent in the impugnedorder that the question of addition under Section 145A of the ITAct is to be considered at the time of disposal of the appeal isperfectly valid. The merit in the addition can only be consideredat the time of disposal of the appeal. In these circumstances, theimpugned order imposing conditions for granting an order underSection 220(6) of the IT Act does not suffer from any jurisdictionalerror. The appellant has already challenged Ext.P4 assessmentorder in appeal before the 2[nd] respondent/Appellate Authority.The appellant can very well move a stay application before theAppellate Authority seeking the reliefs prayed for in the writpetition. We see no illegality in the impugned judgment.However, if the appellant files a stay application before the 2[nd]respondent, the 2[nd] respondent shall consider and dispose ofeither the said stay application or the appeal itself within a period WA No.2021/2023 -:4:- of three weeks from the receipt of the application from theappellant, after hearing the appellant. The writ appeal is disposed of as above. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH Rp