Wa/375/2024 Of Diana Gomez v. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATHTHURSDAY, THE 14 DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1945WA NO. 375 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.1.2024 IN WP(C) NO.42292 OF2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: DIANA GOMEZ,AGED 64 YEARSW/O PETER PEREIRA, AGED 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT JULIE LAND, MUDIYAKODE, CHERUNNIYOOR, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695142 JULIE LAND, MUDIYAKODE, CHERUNNIYOOR, VARKALA, BY ADVS.S.GOKUL BABUARUN M.V.GAADHA SURESHKESHAVRAJ NAIRM.ANIL PRASADPARVATHY NAIRVISWANATH JAYAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),AAYKAR BHAWAN, 1 ST FLOOR, KAWDIAR P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, 695003. AAYKAR BHAWAN, 1 ST FLOOR, KAWDIAR P O, -:2:- 2ASSESSMENT OFFICER,OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN, KOWDIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, 695003.OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN, KOWDIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, 695003. BY ADVS.ADV. P.G. JAYASHANKAR KEERTHIVAS GIRI THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON14.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: -:3:- J U D G M E N T Dated this the 14[th] day of March, 2024 Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J. The petitioner in WP(C).No. 42292 of 2023 is the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 5.1.2024 in the WritPetition. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this Writ Appealare as follows: 2. The appellant had impugned Ext.P1 order before this Court in the writ petition when confronted with recovery steps forrecovery of the amounts confirmed against it by the order. It wasthe case of the appellant that against Ext.P1 order, it haspreferred an appeal along with an application to condone thedelay and a stay petition before the 1[st] respondent, the AppellateAuthority. In the meantime, coercive steps were taken forrealisation of the demands. Therefore, the appellant preferred W.A.No.375/2024 WP(C) No. 42292 of 2023 before this Court. The learned SingleJudge disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the 1[st]respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on theapplication for condoning the delay as well as the stay petitionwithin a period of two months. Even though the learned SingleJudge, granted stay of recovery proceedings, thepetitioner/appellant was directed to remit 15% of the totaldemand as per Ext.P1 assessment order within a period of oneweek as a condition for the stay which is under challenge in thisappeal. 3.We have heard Sri. Gokul Babu S., the learnedcounsel for the appellant and Sri. P.G. Jayasankar, the learnedStanding counsel for the Income Tax Department. We have heard Sri. Gokul Babu S., the learned 4.The learned Single Judge had relegated the appellantto the alternative remedy before the statutory authority and stayof the recovery proceedings was granted. We feel that thecondition imposed to remit 15% of the total demand for grant ofstay is arbitrary. Accordingly, we modify the impugned judgment -:5:- of the learned Single Judge setting aside the condition imposed to remit 15% of the total demand. Save for this limitedmodification, the rest of the directions in the impugnedjudgment are not interfered with. The writ appeal is disposed of as above. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp