Wp(C)/6480/2014 Of Shri Vakayil Abdul Saleem v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/23RD PHALGUNA, 1935 WP(C).No. 6480 of 2014 (H) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SHRI VAKAYIL ABDUL SALEEM, "SWAPNAKOODU", BEHIND SITARA AUDITORIUM, PALLIPURAM ROAD, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD-679 303. BY SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADVS. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH, SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN, SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, PALAKKAD-678 001. WARD-2, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V, 6TH FLOOR, KERA BHAVAN, S.R.V.H.S. ROAD, 6TH FLOOR, KERA BHAVAN, S.R.V.H.S. ROAD, KOCHI-682 011. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. WP(C).No. 6480 of 2014 (H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.03.2013 ALONG WITH THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 22.03.2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11.THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 22.03.2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. P2: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 06.04.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2(A): COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 19.08.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.09.2013 IN WP(C).NO. 21675 OF 2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ITA 15/PKD/CIT(A)/V/2013-14 DATED 13.11.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.--------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 6480 of 2014 (H) ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14[th] day of March, 2014 JUDGMENT Correctness and sustainability of the condition imposedby the appellate authority as per Ext.P4 order, directingthe petitioner to satisfy 50% of the liability by way of'five' equal monthly installments commencing fromNovember 2013, up to March 2014, is under challengein this writ petition. 2.The sequence of events reveals that, Ext.P1assessment order is under challenge before the secondrespondent, by way of Ext.P2 appeal, along with Ext.P2(a) petition for stay. In view of the coerciveproceedings, the petitioner was constrained toapproach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.21675 of 2013,which was disposed of, as per Ext.P3 judgment dated02.09.2013, directing the appellate authority to pass W.P.(C) NO. 6480 of 2014 (H) appropriate orders on Ext.P2(a). It was accordingly, thatExt.P4 order was passed by the second respondent,imposing the condition as above. 2.The sequence of events reveals that, Ext.P1assessment order is under challenge before the secondrespondent, by way of Ext.P2 appeal, along with Ext.P2(a) petition for stay. In view of the coerciveproceedings, the petitioner was constrained toapproach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.21675 of 2013,which was disposed of, as per Ext.P3 judgment dated02.09.2013, directing the appellate authority to pass W.P.(C) NO. 6480 of 2014 (H) appropriate orders on Ext.P2(a). It was accordingly, thatExt.P4 order was passed by the second respondent,imposing the condition as above. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner has already satisfied the initial threeinstallments and only two more are remaining. Theprayer is to cause the appeal itself to be considered anddisposed of, since it is pending for more than one year.The learned standing counsel for the Departmentsubmits that the discretion has been properly exercisedby the appellate authority and that the petitioner didnot have any grievance so far, who admittedly satisfiedthree installments. petitioner has already satisfied the initial threeinstallments and only two more are remaining. Theprayer is to cause the appeal itself to be considered anddisposed of, since it is pending for more than one year.The learned standing counsel for the Departmentsubmits that the discretion has been properly exercisedby the appellate authority and that the petitioner didnot have any grievance so far, who admittedly satisfiedthree installments. 4.After hearing both the sides and also the submissionmade by the learned counsel, the petitioner is grantedsome more time to satisfy the remaining installments.Accordingly, the 4[th] installment shall be satisfied by thepetitioner on or before 30[th] of this Month to be followedmade by the learned counsel, the petitioner is grantedsome more time to satisfy the remaining installments.Accordingly, the 4[th] installment shall be satisfied by thepetitioner on or before 30[th] of this Month to be followed W.P.(C) NO. 6480 of 2014 (H) 3 by the next one, on or before the 30[th] of April, 2014. 5.Subject to this modification, the writ petition is disposed of. It is for the appellate authority to pass final orders inthe appeal, in accordance with law, as expeditiously aspossible. On satisfaction of 50% of the total liability, asordered in Ext.P4, realisation of the balance amountshall be kept in abeyance till finalisation of the appealas aforesaid. The writ petition is disposed of. AMV/15/3/ Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE