Wp(C)/629/2013 Of Smt. Manju Ajithkumar v. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/17TH POUSHA 1934 WP(C).No. 629 of 2013 (C) ------------------------- PETITIONER : - ------------------------ SMT. MANJU AJITHKUMAR, "SUMTHRUPTHI", RAJADHANI BUILDINGS, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 023. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN SMT.RAJI VINCENT RESPONDENTS : - -------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III, ERNAKULAM - 682 018. ERNAKULAM - 682 018. 3. THE COMMISIONER OF WEALTH TAX (APPEALS)-III, ERNAKULAM - 682 018. ERNAKULAM - 682 018. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), 5[th] FLOOR, KANDAMKULATHIL TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN - 682 011. M.G.ROAD, COCHIN - 682 011. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 629 of 2013 (C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT P1 :TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2[nd] RESPONDENT (AY:2004-05).EXT P2 :TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2[nd] RESPONDENT (AY:2005-06).EXT P2 :TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2[nd] RESPONDENT (AY:2005-06). EXT P3 :TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2[nd] RESPONDENT (AY:2006-07). EXT P4 :TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2[nd] RESPONDENT (AY:2007-08).EXT P5 :TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2[nd] RESPONDENT (AY:2008-09).EXT P6 :TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2[nd] RESPONDENT (AY:2009-10).EXT P7 :TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2[nd] RESPONDENT (AY:2010-11).EXT P8 :TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 3[rd] RESPONDENT (AY:2004-05).EXT P5 :TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2[nd] RESPONDENT (AY:2008-09).EXT P6 :TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2[nd] RESPONDENT (AY:2009-10).EXT P7 :TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2[nd] RESPONDENT (AY:2010-11).EXT P8 :TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 3[rd] RESPONDENT (AY:2004-05). EXT P9 :TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY. EXT P10 :TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE 1[st] RESPONDENT. EXT P11 :TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 24.4.2012 IN WP(c) 10230/12. EXT P12 :TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 5[th] RESPONDENT. EXT P13 :TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 12.11.2012.EXT P13 :TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 12.11.2012. EXT P14 :TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 21.11.2012. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :NIL. // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE DMR/- ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.629 OF 2013(C) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7[th] day of January, 2013 J U D G M E N T Following a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, assessments were completed against the petitioner for theyears 2004-05 to 2010-2011. Against those assessment ordersExts.P1 to P7 appeals have been filed. These appeals arepending consideration of the 2[nd] respondent. According to thepetitioner, subsequently the assessment orders were revisedand liability was also reduced. It is also her case that 50% ofthe tax due under the revised assessment orders have beenpaid by her. Despite the payments made as above, recoveryproceedings pursuant to the assessment orders are beingcontinued. It is with this grievance the writ petition is filed. 2. Although the Standing Counsel for the revenue objected to the contention of the petitioner pointing out Ext.P11 judgmentand that the petition filed for clarification is pending, still havingregard to the fact that according to the petitioner, 50% of the tax due from her had already been paid, I see no reason why the 2. Although the Standing Counsel for the revenue objected to the contention of the petitioner pointing out Ext.P11 judgmentand that the petition filed for clarification is pending, still havingregard to the fact that according to the petitioner, 50% of the tax due from her had already been paid, I see no reason why the recovery should be allowed to continue, pending disposal of theappeal. Therefore I dispose of the writ petition with the followingdirections; i. That the 2[nd] respondent appellate authority shall passorders on Exts.P1 to P7 appeals as expeditiously as possible. ii. In the meanwhile, in view of the submission made by thecounsel for the petitioner that 50% of the tax had already beenremitted, I direct that the recovery pursuant to the assessmentorders shall be kept in abeyance. However, any attachment thathas already effected by the respondents will remain in force,during the pendency of the appeal. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE