Wp(C)/20240/2020 Of Sacred Heart Monastery v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 7TH ASWINA, 1942 WP(C).No.20240 OF 2020(D) PETITIONER: SACRED HEART MONASTERYTHEVARA, COCHIN, ERNAKULAM - 682 013, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRIOR FR.POULOSE KIDANGEN CMI. BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.)SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOSSRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOSSRI.ISAAC THOMASSRI.P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAMSHRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOSSHRI.SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARASMT.ZAINAB ZEBAIBRAHIM P.M. RESPONDENTS: THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON29.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Against Ext.P3 assessment order and Ext.P4 rectified order underthe Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P5 appeal togetherwith Ext.P6 stay petition before the 2nd respondent. It is the case of thepetitioner that pending disposal of the stay petition by the appellateauthority he had approached the 1st respondent with a petition underSection 220(6) of the Income Tax Act when the 1st respondentmechanically directed the petitioner to remit 20% of the confirmedamount as a condition for a grant of stay pending disposal of the appeal.In the Writ Petition, it is the case of the petitioner that the stayapplication is yet to be considered by the 2nd respondent, and undersuch circumstances, there ought not to have been a direction to depositamounts pending disposal of the stay application by the appellateauthority. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitionerand also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case asalso the submissions made across the Bar, I am of the view that thereshould not be a recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitionerpending disposal of the stay application by the 2[nd] respondent appellate authority. Accordingly, I direct the 2[nd] respondent to consider and passorders on Ext.P6 stay petition within six weeks from the date of receiptof a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Ext.P8 order ofthe 1[st] respondent shall stand quashed and the recovery of amountsconfirmed against the petitioner by Exts.P3 and P4 orders shall be keptin abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 2[nd] respondent inExt.P6 stay application as directed and the order communicated to thepetitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petitiontogether with a copy of this judgment, before the 2[nd] respondent, forfurther action. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY//