Wa/2162/2023 Of Mundampra Mohammed Faez 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 FRIDAY, THE 15 DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945WA NO. 2162 OF 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.12.2023 IN WP(C) 40229/2023 OFHIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: MUNDAMPRA MOHAMMED FAEZMPB MALIYAKKAL HOUSE AREEKODE PO MALAPPURAM KERALA, PIN - 673639BY ADVS.ANIL D. NAIRTELMA RAJU RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXINCOME TAX DEPARTMENT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN NORTH BLOCK, NEW ANNEX BUILDING, MANANCHIRAKOZHIKODE, PIN - 6730012THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001SC, SRI JOSE JOSEPHTHIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON15.12.2023, 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 WP(C).No. 40229 of 2023 is the appellant hereinaggrieved by the judgment dated 1.12.2023 in the Writ Petition. The brieffacts necessary for disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows: 2. The appellant had impugned Ext.P1 assessment order before thisCourt in the Writ Petition when confronted with recovery steps for recoveryof the amounts confirmed against it by the assessment order. It was the caseof the appellant that against Ext.P1 assessment order he has preferredExt.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition for the assessment year 2016-2017under the Income Tax Act. The apprehension of the appellant was that evenbefore consideration of the stay petition there would be recovery stepsinitiated by the respondents for recovery of the amounts confirmed againstthe appellant by Ext.P1assessment order. 3. The learned Single Judge who considered the matter directed therespondents to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 staypetition within a time frame. The learned Single Judge, however, did notgrant a stay of recovery proceedings pending disposal of the stay petition bythe respondents. It is for this limited relief that the appellant is before usthrough the present appeal. W.A.No.2162/2023 -:3:- 4. We have heard Sri. Anil D. Nair, the learned counsel for theappellant and Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing counsel for the IncomeTax Department. In our view, since the learned Single Judge had relegated theappellant to the alternative remedy before the statutory authority it wasincumbent upon the learned Judge to protect the appellant from recoveryproceedings pending disposal of the petition by the respondent appellateauthority. Accordingly, we modify the impugned judgment of the learnedSingle Judge to the limited extent of clarifying that pending disposal of thestay petition or appeal whichever is earlier by the appellate authority, therecovery proceedings against the appellant for recovery of the amountsconfirmed against him by Ext.P1assessment order shall be kept in abeyance.Save for this limited modification, the rest of the directions in the impugnedjudgment are not interfered with. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE