Allowed

Martin Puthumana Thomas, v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Kerala HC16 Aug 2022WA/594/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the appeal where the appellant complied with a condition to remit 15% of income tax demand. The court directed the 3rd respondent to dispose of specific Income Tax appeals within three months and granted an interim stay. The writ appeal against the High Court of Kerala was disposed of favorably to the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 3rd respondent to dispose of specific Income Tax appeals within three months; granting interim stay of proceedings; disposing of the writ appeal.

Martin Puthumana Thomas, Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax — Income Tax | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 25TH SRAVANA, 1944

¶7

W.A. NO.594 OF 2022

¶8

(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTWP(C) 1316/2019 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA)

¶9

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶10

MARTIN PUTHUMANA THOMAS,
AGED 44 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR OF M/S.PUTHUMANA GOLD HOUSE,
MAIN ROAD, PAYYANNUR-670 307.
BY ADVS.
S.ARUN RAJ
C.T.SUJA

¶11

RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
CIRCLE-1, KANNUR RANGE, KANNUR-670 006.
2THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673 001.
3THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),
AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673 001.

¶13

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Writ Appeal No.594/2022

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

(Dated: 16th August, 2022)

¶18

Basant Balaji, J

¶19

The appellant challenges the judgment of the

¶20

learned single judge in W.P.(C)No.1316 of 2019,
wherein the learned single judge refused to interfere
with Ext.P12 order, by which the Commissioner of Income

¶21

Tax Appeals granted a stay of recovery of demands on
condition the appellant remits 15% of the aggregate
demand as reduced by demand already paid in three equal
instalments.

¶22

2. The petitioner is an individual engaged in

¶23

the business of trading in gold and silver jewellery

¶24

at Payyannur in Kannur and is an assessee of the income
tax. A notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act

¶25

was issued on 08.03.2016. On receipt of the notice,

¶26

the petitioner filed a revised return on 11.08.2016,
declaring the income originally returned. Though the
petitioner requested reasons for re-opening the
assessment for the assessment years, without

¶27

Writ Appeal No.594/2022

¶28

¶29

furnishing the reasons for re-opening, the assessment
was proceeded under Section 143(3) read with Section
148 of the Act. The petitioner, therefore, filed a
statutory appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax
Appeals and submitted a stay application against the
collection of demand for the assessment years 2010-11
& 2014-15. The stay petition was disposed of by the
Commissioner of Appeals and granted stay on condition
that the petitioner pays 15% of the aggregate demand
as reduced by demand already paid by three equal
instalments. Impugning the said order, the writ
petition was filed.

¶30

3. The learned single judge did not interfere

¶31

with the order of the Commissioner of Appeals for the
fact that the discretionary domain of the Appellate
Authority cannot be interfered with unless the
authority has acted ultra vires or pervasive or bogus.

¶32

The learned single judge found that there are no
grounds to interfere with, hence the writ petition was
dismissed, but extended the time for compliance with
the direction to remit 15% of the amount by two months.

¶33

Writ Appeal No.594/2022

¶34

¶35

4. Today, the counsel for the appellant submits

¶36

that the appellant has remitted the following amounts:

¶37

`Sl.No.`	`Date of the amount` `remitted`	`Amount remitted.`
`1`	`26.09.2018`	`Rs.17,79,490/-`
`2`	`03.03.2022`	`Rs.5,15,874.44/-`
`3`	`March 2022`	`Rs.12,254/-`
`4`	`30.07.2022`	`Rs.30,04,693/-`

¶38

Therefore, he requests that, since the conditional
order for payment of 15% of the amount demanded has
been complied with, a direction may be issued to the
Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals to dispose of the
appeal within a stipulated time. The Standing Counsel

¶39

for the Income Tax Department submits that if the
petitioner has already deposited 15% of the amount as
ordered in Ext.P12, the appeal can be disposed of
within a period of three months. Taking note of the
submissions of both the counsel, we are of the view
that, since the appellant has already deposited 15% of
the aggregate demand, the writ appeal can be disposed
of directing the 3rd respondent to dispose of the appeal

¶40

within a time limit.

¶41

Writ Appeal No.594/2022

¶42

¶43

In the result, the writ appeal is allowed as

¶44

follows:

¶45

The 3rd respondent considers taking up ITA

¶46

Nos.10996, 10999, 11002, 11048, and
11114/CIT(A)/2016-17 and disposes of the
appeals within three months from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.
It is made clear that since the appellant has

¶47

already deposited 15% of the aggregate
demand, there will be an interim stay of
further proceedings till the appeals are
disposed of as stated above.

¶48

The Writ Appeal is disposed of.

¶49

 S.V.BHATTI, JUDGE

¶50

Sd/-
 BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE

¶51

Martin Puthumana Thomas, v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Martin Puthumana Thomas, v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C. a George Vs the State Tax Officer (Works Contract)

The State of Kerala Vs v.Krishnakumar

Malabar Gold (P) Ltd. Vs the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes

State of Kerala Vs M/S.Chakolas Habitat Bay Side

Assistant Commissioner Vs M/S.Interdec

The State Tax Officer Vs P.S.Kannan