Padiyath Moosa Haji vs Income Tax Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 23389 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
  THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 26605 OF 2021
PETITIONER :

          PADIYATH MOOSA HAJI,
          AGED 68 YEARS,
          PADIYATH HOUSE, PAVUKKONAM,
          VANIAMKULAM, PALAKAKD-679522.

          BY ADVS.
          T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.)
          NISHA JOHN
          V.P.NARAYANAN


RESPONDENTS :

    1.   INCOME TAX OFFICER
         WARD 3, AYAKARBHAVAN,
         ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD,
         PALAKKAD-678014.

    2.   NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE,
         NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.

    3.   THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),
         NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE,
         NEW DELHI - 110 001


          BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 26605 OF 2021
                                       2


                  BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
                =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                   W.P.(C).No.26605 of 2021
                =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
           Dated this the 25th day of November, 2021


                                 JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order for the year

2017-18, petitioner has preferred a statutory appeal before the 3 rd

respondent. Along with the appeal, a petition for stay was also

preferred as evident from Ext.P4. The learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the petitioner submits that the stay petition as well as

the appeal are pending consideration and in the meantime,

respondents are initiating proceedings for recovery of the amount

and therefore the petitioner will be subject to irreparable loss and

hardship, if the appeal is not disposed of.

2. I have heard Sri.T.M.Sreedharan, the learned Senior

Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for

the respondents Adv.Jose Joseph.

3. The learned Standing Counsel expresses his

apprehension as to whether the appeal itself would have been

disposed of by now.

4. Having regard to the circumstances arising in the case WP(C) NO. 26605 OF 2021

and the contentions raised across the bar, I am of the view that this

writ petition can be disposed of by directing the 3 rd respondent to

consider and pass appropriate orders on the stay petition within a

period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment. It is also clarified that if the circumstances warrant, the

Appellate Authority shall also be at liberty to take up the appeal and

consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon instead of the

stay petition.

5. Till consideration of the stay petition, coercive

proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance.

Needless to mention, the petitioner shall be granted an opportunity

of hearing, in accordance with law.

It is clarified that the aforesaid direction shall apply only

in the event of the appeal pending consideration. If the appeal has

already been disposed of, petitioner will have to workout his

remedies elsewhere.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM WP(C) NO. 26605 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26605/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 11.12.2019 U/S 144 OF THE ACT PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER U/S 271F OF THE ACT PASSED BY NFAC, DELHI DATED 01.06.2021.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 10.02.2020 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 10.02.2020 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REPLY DATED 18.10.2021 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.