Disposed

Remya Vikraman Nair Rema Devi v. the Central Board of Direct Taxes

Kerala HC21 Mar 2024WP(C)/11566/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Income Tax writ petition, the petitioner sought direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to expedite consideration of a stay petition against recovery actions. The court directed the 3rd respondent to pass appropriate orders on the stay petition within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the extant stay petition expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months.

Remya Vikraman Nair Rema Devi Vs the Central Board of Direct Taxes — Income Tax | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 11566 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

REMYA VIKRAMAN NAIR REMA DEVI
AGED 43 YEARS
D/O VIKRAMAN NAIR MUDUMBIL PUTHENVEEDU, KARIKKAKOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695007
BY ADVS.
K.P.PRADEEP
T.T.BIJU
T.THASMI
M.J.ANOOPA

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK , NEW DELHI REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PIN - 110001

¶10

2 ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI ROOM NO. 401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP,JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI, PIN - 110003

¶11

3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI, ROOM NO. 401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP,JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI, PIN - 110003 BY ADVS. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM P.R.AJITH KUMAR(K/000708/1998)

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI. P.R. AJITH KUMAR-SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 11566 OF 2024

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 21^st day of March, 2024

¶19

The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the

¶20

following prayers:-

¶21

“i. To call for the records leading to issue Ext P1 assessment order issued by the 2nd respondent and Ext P2 appeal and Ext P3 stay application pending before 3rd respondent and issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other writs or order or direction to the 3rd respondent or the appropriate authority to consider and pass appropriate orders in Ext P2 appeal or Ext P3stay application, pending before him, at the earliest or within a timeframe fixed by this Hon’ble Court considering the fact and circumstances of the case.

¶22

ii. To call for the records leading to issue Ext P1 assessment order issued by the 2nd respondent and issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writs or order or directions, to the 2nd respondent to keep in abeyance the recovery action pertains to Ext P1 assessment order issued for the Assessment year 2016-17, during the pendency of Ext P2 appeal or Ext P3 stay application. iii. Direct the respondents to pay cost of this proceedings.”

¶23

The petitioner is an assessee under the provisions of

¶24

the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the IT Act’ for short). The petitioner did not file his return of his income during the assessment year 2016-2017. As per the assessment order the petitioner had sold immovable property in the financial year 2015-2016 relevant to the assessment year 2016-2017 amounting to Rs. 80,00,000/-. On the basis of the information flagged, the assessing officer believed that the income of the

¶25

WP(C) NO. 11566 OF 2024

¶26

¶27

petitioner amounting to Rs. 80,00,000/- had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the IT Act. The petitioner was issued with a notice under Section 148 of the IT Act. However, the petitioner did not file any return in pursuance to the notice. The petitioner was also issued notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1), to which the petitioner filed his reply only to the notices issued under Section 142(1) and not to notice issued under Section 143(2).

¶28

The assessing officer after considering the replies completed the assessment under Section 147 r/w Section 144B of the IT Act on 05.03.2024 in Ext.P1. Though the petitioner conceded capital gain of Rs. 5, 54,485/- but the assessing authority assessed the capital gain at Rs.80,00,000/-, and thus, demanded tax of Rs. 74,45,515/-. The petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition against the said assessment order. Notices have been issued to the petitioner under Section 156 of the IT Act, demanding sum of Rs. 42,00,705/- as there is no interim order by the appellate authority. Now the petitioner has approached this court with the aforesaid prayer.

¶29

Dr. K.P Pradeep Kumar, the eminent counsel of this

¶30

WP(C) NO. 11566 OF 2024

¶31

¶32

court, after some arguments submit that he would be satisfied if this court direct the appellate authority to consider the stay petition within time frame manners expeditiously. Considering the said prayer, the present writ petition is disposed of, directing the 3^rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate order on stay petition expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months in accordance with the law.

¶33

Sd/DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE

¶34

¶35

WP(C) NO. 11566 OF 2024

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11566/2024

¶38

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO
ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1062059897(1) DATED
05-03-2024 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 13-03-2024
FILED FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 BEFORE THE
3RDRESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 13-
03-2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.
ITBA/AST/S/156/2023-24/1062059927(1)
ISSUED UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE INCOME TAX
ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

Remya Vikraman Nair Rema Devi v. the Central Board of Direct Taxes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Remya Vikraman Nair Rema Devi v. the Central Board of Direct Taxes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kec International Ltd, Vs Union of India

Kec International Ltd, Vs Union of India

Kec International Ltd, Vs Union of India

Jinny Jaison Vs the State Tax Officer

M Trans Corporation, Vs the State Tax Officer

Kannur International Airport Limited, Vs Tahsildar, Thalassery Taluk