Wp(C)/6631/2018 Of O.p. Achuthankutty v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 6631 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) O.P. ACHUTHANKUTTY, AGED 63 YEARS,S/O.GOVINDA MENON,VIII-603,"SHANTHI",NEAR MAMMIYOOR TEMPLE,GURUVAYUR,THRISSUR-680101. BY ADVS.SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,AYAKAR BHAVAN,S.T.NAGAR,THRISSUR-688001. CENTRAL CIRCLE,AYAKAR BHAVAN,S.T.NAGAR,THRISSUR-688001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), AYAKAR BHAVAN,COCHIN. AYAKAR BHAVAN,COCHIN. 3. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), COCHIN. COCHIN. 4. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIR PERSON,C-II/49,SATYA MARG, CHANAKYAPURI,NEW DELHI-110021. 5. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE/FINANCE, 128 A,NORTH BLOCK,NEW DELHI-110001. R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-03-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXT. P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 29.12.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 29.12.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENTEXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.12.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENTEXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED ON 13/01/2018 ALONG WITH CHALLAN AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF 2013-14.EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED ON 13/01/2018 ALONG WITH CHALLAN AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF 2014-15EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED ON 13/01/2018 ALONG WITH CHALLAN AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF 2015-16EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY DATED 28.01.2018 AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF 2013-14EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY DATED 28.01.2018 AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF2014-15EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY DATED 28.01.2018 AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF2915-16.EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.AFWPA 1021N/DCIT/(CC)/TCR/2017-18 DATED 01.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENTEXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED -09.02.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENTEXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.AFWPA 1021N/DCIT(CC)/TCR/2017-18 DATED 19.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 28.02.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. // TRUE COPY // Sd/-PS TO JUDGE. Kvs/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.6631 of 2018 = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1[st] day of March, 2018 J U D G M E N T // TRUE COPY // Sd/-PS TO JUDGE. Kvs/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.6631 of 2018 = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1[st] day of March, 2018 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act(the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. Aggrieved byExts.P1 to P3 assessment orders, the petitioner preferredExts.P4 to P6 appeals before the second respondent. Ext.P13 isthe composite application for stay filed by the petitioner inExts.P4 to P6 appeals. The grievance of the petitioner in thewrit petition concerns the delay on the part of the secondrespondent in passing orders on Exts.P4 to Ext.P6 appeals. It isstated that though the petitioner moved for stay before the thecompetent authority under sub-section (6) of Section 220 of theAct, the petitioner was called upon to pay 20% of the demandwhile granting the stay sought for by him in terms of Ext.P10communication and the said decision has been affirmed by thethird respondent in terms of Ext.P12 communication. It isalleged by the petitioner that since the said directions have notbeen complied with by the petitioner, proceedings have been initiated for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P1 to P3orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directionsin this regard, in this writ petition. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner asalso the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of thecase, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitiondirecting the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P13composite application for stay, within two months from the dateof receipt of a copy of this judgment, untrammelled by Exts.P10and P12 communications. Ordered accordingly. Needless tosay that until orders are passed on Ext.P13 application for stay,further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered byExts.P1 to P3 assessment orders shall be deferred. Sd/-P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. Kvs/- // true copy //