Wp(C)/27343/2012 Of Ajith.k.mangatt v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/28TH KARTHIKA 1934 WP(C).No. 27343 of 2012 (P) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- AJITH.K.MANGATT, AGED 43 YEARS RESIDING AT 4/184, MANGATT HOUSE, OCHANTHURTHU, KOCHI 8 BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(5) ERNAKULAM KOCHI 682002 WARD 3(5) ERNAKULAM KOCHI 682002 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS 2) ERNAKULAM KOCHI 682016 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN FILED BY THEPETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-12010 DATED 23-06-2009 EXT.P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 31-10-20122 OF THECO,MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II ERNAKULAM EXT.P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE ASESSMENT ORDER DATED 13-12-2011 PASSEDBY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 10-01-2012FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5THE TRUE COPY OF THE RODER DATED 15-02-2012 OF THE 1STRESPONDENT. EXT.P6THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 21-02-2012 EXT.P7THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAYER COUNTER FOIL DATED 21-03-2012EXT.P8THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAYER COUNDER FOIL DATED 2-04-2012EXT.P9THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAYER COUNTER FOIL DATED 21-05-2012EXT.P10THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAYER COUNTER FOIL DATED 25-06-2012EXT.P11THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAYER COUNTER FOIL DATED 25-07-2012EXT.P12THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAYER COUNTER FOIL DATED 25-08-2012EXT.13THE TRUE COP[Y OF THE TAX PAYER COUNTER FOIL DATED 25.9.2012EXT.14THE TRUE COP[Y OF THE TAX PAYER COUNTER FOIL DATED22.10.2012 EXT.P15THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10-09-2012 IN WPC NO20882/2012 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P16THE TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 09-09-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN EXT.P4 APPEAL sd/- P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ........................................ W.P.(C).27343/2012 .............................................. Dated this the 19[th] day of November, 2012 JUDGMENT The prayer sought in the writ petition isto direct disposal of Ext.P4 appeal pendingconsideration of the 2[nd] respondent within atime frame to be fixed by this Court. Thereis also a prayer for the disposal of Ext.P16stay petition. 2.Ext.P3 is an assessment order passedagainst the petitioner under the Income TaxAct. Against that order, petitioner filedExt.P4 appeal. In Ext.P5 order passed by theassessing authority, petitioner was directedto pay 50% of the tax due in instalments asspecified therein. After Ext.P5 order waspassed, petitioner approached this Court andfiled W.P.(C).20882/12. In that writ petitionpetitioner sought an expeditious disposal ofthe appeal. This Court by Ext.P15 judgment rendered on 10[th] September 2012, directed theappellate authority to dispose of the appeal,subject to the petitioner complying withExt.P5 order referred to above. It appearsthat in the meanwhile, petitioner had filedExt.P16 stay petition seeking stay ofrecovery of the tax under Ext.P3. It isthereafter, that this writ petition is filed. 3.A reading of Ext.P15 judgment shows thatthis Court has directed consideration of theappeal subject to the petitioner complyingwith Ext.P5 order requiring him to pay 50% ofthe tax due under Ext.P3. Therefore, questionof directing consideration of the staypetition does not arise. Insofar as thedisposal of the appeal that is sought for isconcerned, there again, matter is governed byExt.P15 judgment. Petitioner has no casethat as at present, he has complied with Ext.P5. If that be so, having regard to thedirections contained in Ext.P15 judgment, atthis stage, this Court cannot directdisposal of the appeal also. 3.A reading of Ext.P15 judgment shows thatthis Court has directed consideration of theappeal subject to the petitioner complyingwith Ext.P5 order requiring him to pay 50% ofthe tax due under Ext.P3. Therefore, questionof directing consideration of the staypetition does not arise. Insofar as thedisposal of the appeal that is sought for isconcerned, there again, matter is governed byExt.P15 judgment. Petitioner has no casethat as at present, he has complied with Ext.P5. If that be so, having regard to thedirections contained in Ext.P15 judgment, atthis stage, this Court cannot directdisposal of the appeal also. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mrcs /true copy/ sd/- P.A. To Judge