Wp(C)/17108/2022 Of Media World Print And Media Service v. Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. THURSDAY, THE 9 DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1944WP(C) NO. 17108 OF 2022 PETITIONER/S: MEDIA WORLD PRINT AND MEDIA SERVICE, TRISSUR-680021, DOOR NO.13/789/38/1B, DEE PEE PLAZA BUILDING KOKKALA, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER VIJAYAN C.A, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O APPU NAIR, RESIDING AT CHEPPAYIL HOUSE, SHASTHRI NAGAR NADATHARA P.O, NADATHARA, THRISSUR, KERALA-680751. BY ADVS.O.A.NURIYANEBIL NIZARFASNA T.Y RESPONDENT/S: 1INCOME TAX OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), TRISSUR, PIN:680 001 . 2PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,OFFICE OF INCOME TAX, KOZHIKODE, PIN: 673001.OFFICE OF INCOME TAX, KOZHIKODE, PIN: 673001. 3ADDL.R3.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, ROOM NO. 356 C.R. BUILDING, IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI, PIN-110002.(ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 3-6-2022 IN IA 1/2022). SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 17108 OF 2022 2 JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court, challenging Ext.P7order, passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 220(6)of the Income Tax Act, directing the petitioner to produceproof of payment of 20% of the demand as a condition forconsidering the grant of stay under the said provision. 2.Ms. Nuriya O.A, the learned counsel appearing forthe petitioner would submit that Ext.P7 order is illegal andunsustainable. It is submitted that there is no provision in theIncome Tax Act which mandates that an application for stayunder Section 220(6) of the said Act can be granted only upondeposit of 20% of the demand. 3.Sri. Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counselappearing for the respondents would submit that while theprovision itself does not mandate any pre-deposit, such pre-deposit is insisted upon under certain circulars andinstructions issued by the Central Board of of Direct Taxes. 4.Learned counsel appearing for the petitionersubmits that the petitioner is not in a position to make thedeposit as demanded in Ext.P7 on account of financialstringency etc. It is submitted that the petitioner has a goodcase in appeal and if the petitioner is required to deposit 20% of the demand as a condition for grant of stay under Section220(6) of the Income Tax Act, the petitioner will be put togreat prejudice. 5.Having regard to the facts and circumstances ofthe case and taking note of the fact that Section 220(6) of theIncome Tax Act does not require any mandatory pre-deposit, Iam of the opinion that Ext.P7 is liable to be set aside with adirection to the 1[st] respondent to pass fresh orders on theapplication for stay (Ext.P6) submitted by the petitioner afteraffording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It isopen to the petitioner to produce such material as may benecessary to establish financial stringency before the 1[st]respondent. If the petitioner files any additional materialbefore the 1[st] respondent, the same shall also be taken intoconsideration before passing fresh orders on the applicationfor stay (Ext.P6) filed by the petitioner. Petitioner shall alsobe afforded an opportunity of hearing before fresh orders arepassed. Till such time as fresh orders are passed on Ext.P6,any demand against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. sd/-GOPINATH P., JUDGE WP(C) NO. 17108 OF 2022 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17108/2022