Wa/846/2012 Of C.abdul Maharoof v. The Income Tax Officer

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2012/4TH VAISAKHA 1934 WA.No. 846 of 2012 () ---------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.6516/2012 DATED 15-03-2012 APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: ----------------------- C.ABDUL MAHAROOF, CHEMBAYIL HOUSE, PUTHARIKKAL P.O., PARAPPANGADI, MALAPPURAM 676 303. BY ADVS. DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY (SR.) SRI. FIROZ K.M. RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:-------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, KOCHI CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI 682 018. KOCHI CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI 682 018. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNALTIONAL TAXATION) CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI 682018. (INTERNALTIONAL TAXATION) CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI 682018. 3. JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI 682018. CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI 682018. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), ANNEX BUILDING, VII FLOOR, NO.121, NUGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI 600034. ANNEX BUILDING, VII FLOOR, NO.121, NUGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI 600034. 5. THE COMMISSIONEER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) III, KERA BHAVAN, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM 682018. KERA BHAVAN, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM 682018. 6. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PARAPPANGADI BRANCH, NAHASONS BUSINESS COMPLEX, ANJAPPURA, PARAPPANGADI BRANCH, NAHASONS BUSINESS COMPLEX, ANJAPPURA, PARAPPANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN. 676 303. 7. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA , PARAPPANGADI BRANCH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIN. 676303. 8. THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, PARAPPANGADI BRANCH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIN. 676303. R1 TO R5 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, S.C., FOR INCOME TAX R6 BY ADVS. SRI T. SETHUMADHAVAN. SRI. SAJUSH PAUL. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-04-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: NS APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 15.03.2012 IN W.P.C. NO.6516/2012. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF W.P.C. NO.6516/2012. RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL / TRUE COPY / NS P.A. TO JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JJ. ------------------------ W.A. NO. 846 OF 2012------------------------ Dated this the 24[th] day of April, 2012JUDGMENT Surendra Mohan,J The complaint of the appellant/petitioner is limited to thecondition that has been stipulated by the learned Single Judgewhile disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner. Thewrit petition has been disposed of with the following directions: “6. However, having regard to the fact thathe has already remitted Rs.25 Lakhs on03/02/2004 and also since according to him theappeal itself has been heard on 17/11/2011, Idirect that the coercive action now initiated byattachment for recovery of the balance amountdue under Ext.P1 order of assessment be stayedon the petitioner remitting a further amount ofRs.25 Lakhs. It is directed on such remittance,the attachment will stand lifted”. 2. According to the appellant, since he has already remitted an amount of Rs. 25 Lakhs, he is not in a position toraise the balance amount of Rs.25 Lakhs due to financialconstraints. The appeal has already been heard in November2011. Subsequently, the matter appears to have been heard W.A. No. 846 /2012 again in April 2012, but no orders have been passed yet. In theabove circumstances, according to the appellant, demands havebeen made for the entire amount that is due as per Ext.P9.Therefore, the appellant seeks the issue of an order staying thedemand till the time, the appeal is finally disposed of. 2. According to the appellant, since he has already remitted an amount of Rs. 25 Lakhs, he is not in a position toraise the balance amount of Rs.25 Lakhs due to financialconstraints. The appeal has already been heard in November2011. Subsequently, the matter appears to have been heard W.A. No. 846 /2012 again in April 2012, but no orders have been passed yet. In theabove circumstances, according to the appellant, demands havebeen made for the entire amount that is due as per Ext.P9.Therefore, the appellant seeks the issue of an order staying thedemand till the time, the appeal is finally disposed of. 3. Advocate Sri.Jose Joseph, who appears for the Revenue, opposes the contentions of the appellant pointing out that thetotal demand being of an amount of Rs. 1.30 Crores. Theamount that has been directed to be deposited is onlyreasonable, since it works out to only less than 50% of the totalamount. For the above reason, it is contended that there isabsolutely no justification for reducing the amount that hasbeen directed to be deposited. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned standing counsel for the Revenue. Havinggiven our anxious consideration to the rival contentionsadvanced before us, we are of the opinion that a reduction inthe amount that has been directed to be deposited can be given.It is sufficient that the appellant is directed to pay a furtheramount of Rs. 10 Lakhs as a condition for keeping in abeyance W.A. No. 846 /2012 all further steps to recover the amounts demanded. 5. In the above circumstances, this writ appeal is disposedof directing that all coercive steps to recover the amountdemanded from the appellant shall be kept in abeyance oncondition that the appellant pays a further amount of Rs.10Lakhs towards the disputed amount of income tax within aperiod of one month. There shall also be a further direction tothe 5[th] respondent to dispose of the appellant's appeal inaccordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at anyrate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt ofa copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN,JUDGE BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH,JUDGE. dpk -// TRUE COPY //- PA TO JUDGE.