Remanded

Stephen Pathickal Kurian,Kottayam. v. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax,Kottayam.

Kerala HC17 Feb 2023WP(C)/1677/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in a writ petition, directed the Income Tax appellate authority to expedite the pending appeal against a rectified assessment order and stay coercive recovery steps until the appeal is disposed of within three months, deeming merits inadmissible at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Stay on coercive recovery steps; appeal pending before 2nd Respondent to be disposed of within three months.

Stephen Pathickal Kurian,Kottayam. Vs Assisstant Commissioner of… — Income Tax | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 28TH MAGHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1677 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

STEPHEN PATHICKAL KURIAN,
AGED 58 YEARS
PATHICKAL,VELIYANNOR,
MEENACHIL,KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686638
BY ADV V.DEVANANDA NARASIMHAM

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
CIRCLE-1, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM RANGE KOTTAYAM., PIN -
686001
2COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NATIONAL
FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC),2 45-A,NORTH BLOCK,NEW
DELHI., PIN - 110001

¶10

OTHER PRESENT:

¶11

SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC.

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.02.2023, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

T.R.RAVI, J.

¶15

---------------------------------------WP(C) NO. 1677 OF 2023

¶16

Dated this the 17^th day of February, 2023

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The assessment for the year 2013-14 was completed in

¶19

2015 and rectified in 2021. The petitioner has preferred an appeal which is still pending. In the meanwhile, coercive steps have been initiated which is the reason why the petitioner is before this Court.

¶20

The petitioner has a case that the rectification itself was unwarranted as it is beyond time. Since, a statutory appeal has already been preferred, I do not think it is necessary to go into the merits of the case at this stage in this writ petition.

¶21

The writ petition is hence disposed of directing the appellate authority to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 appeal, at the earliest, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Coercive steps initiated shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI, JUDGE

mtk

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1677/2023

¶27

`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit-P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3)` `OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-` `14 BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5; KOTTAYAM ON` `16-01-15 IS PRODUCED.`
`Exhibit-P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT 15-03-21 PASSED` `U/S 154 OF THE IT ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-` `14 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON THE PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit-P3`	`TRUE COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM E-FILED IN FORM 35 ON` `20-04-21 U/S 246A OF THE IT ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT` `YEAR 2013-14 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit-P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21-12-22 ISSUED BY 1ST` `RESPONDENT PROPOSING TO INITIATE RECOVERY` `PROCEEDINGS TO COLLECT TAX DEMANDED AS PER EXBT-P2` `ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 IS` `PRODUCED.`

Stephen Pathickal Kurian,Kottayam. v. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax,Kottayam.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Stephen Pathickal Kurian,Kottayam. v. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax,Kottayam.

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

Harikumar. a Vs Authorized Officer

Mejo Varghese Vs Hdb Financial Services Ltd.

Shabeerali.N. Vs the Regional Transport Authority,(Taxation Officer)

Rajan Abraham, Managing Partner, Friends Cashews Vs Assistant Commissioner-Iii, Kollam

Bettish Paul Vs the State Bank of India

Ahamad C.K, Vs the Authorized Officer