Sham Basheer v. ITO, Kottayam / The CIT(A), Kottayam
[Citation -2020-LL-0310-18]

Citation 2020-LL-0310-18
Appellant Name Sham Basheer
Respondent Name ITO, Kottayam / The CIT(A), Kottayam
Court HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 10/03/2020
Assessment Year 2017-18
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags application for stay • condonation of delay • stay petition • demand notice • interim stay
Bot Summary: No.7264 OF 2020(G) 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court against the assessment order dated 31.12.2019 for the assessment year 2017 preferred an appeal Ext.P2, stay application Ext.P3 and delay condonation application Ext.P3(a). The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the appeal the demand notice under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act along with the assessment order had already issued and therefore, the predicament of the petitioner is writ large. I am of the view that the petitioner s grievance for the time being can be only addressed by issuing directions to the 2nd respondent to consider the application for stay and condonation of delay for consideration of the interim prayer sought in terms of the memorandum of appeal was staying the demand, so that the fate can be decided. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent to decide the application for condonation of delay and stay. No.7264 OF 2020(G) 3 from the receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. Till then the demand Ext.P4 or any future demand he prays during the interregnum is ordered to be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that the interim stay is only till the adjudication of stay and condonation delay application.


IN HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL TUESDAY, 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.7264 OF 2020(G) PETITIONER: SHAM BASHEER AGED 48 YEARS PROPRIETOR OF M/S. AFC FRUITS RESIDING AT ASHIK MANZIL, NEAR VIMALA HOSPITAL, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM, 686631, KEARLA, INDIA, BY ADV. SMT.K.LATHA RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOTTAYAM-686001. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686001. SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2020, COURT ON SAME DAY DELIVERED FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.7264 OF 2020(G) 2 JUDGMENT petitioner has approached this Court against assessment order dated 31.12.2019 for assessment year 2017 preferred appeal Ext.P2, stay application Ext.P3 and delay condonation application Ext.P3(a). learned counsel for petitioner submits that during pendency of appeal demand notice under Section 156 of Income Tax Act along with assessment order had already issued and therefore, predicament of petitioner is writ large. 2. I am of view that petitioner s grievance for time being can be only addressed by issuing directions to 2nd respondent to consider application for stay and condonation of delay for consideration of interim prayer sought in terms of memorandum of appeal (Ext.P2) was staying demand, so that fate can be decided. Without expressing any opinion on merits of matter, I dispose of writ petition with direction to respondent to decide application for condonation of delay and stay (Exts.P3 and P3(a)) within period of one month WP(C).No.7264 OF 2020(G) 3 from receipt of certified copy of this judgment. Till then demand Ext.P4 or any future demand he prays during interregnum is ordered to be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that interim stay is only till adjudication of stay and condonation delay application. This writ petition will stand disposed of. Sd/- AMIT RAWAL nak JUDGE WP(C).No.7264 OF 2020(G) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2019- 20/1023548847(1) ISSUED U/S.143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, DATED 31.12.2019 ISSUED BY FIRST RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017- 18 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL IN FORM NO.35 ALONG WITH GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE SECOND RESPONDENT AGAINST EXT P1 ORDER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER IN P2 APPEALS, EXHIBIT P3A TRUE COPY OF DELAY CONDONATION PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER IN P2 APPEALS. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE OF DEMAND UNDER SECTION 156 OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 DATED 31.12.2019 ISSUED BY FIRST RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE Sham Basheer v. ITO, Kottayam / CIT(A), Kottayam
Report Error