Akay Natural Ingredients Private Limited, (Formerly Akay Flavours And Aromatics (P) Limited) v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, DCIT Corporate 1(1), Kochi / The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Kochi
[Citation -2020-LL-0825-2]

Citation 2020-LL-0825-2
Appellant Name Akay Natural Ingredients Private Limited, (Formerly Akay Flavours And Aromatics (P) Limited)
Respondent Name The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, DCIT Corporate 1(1), Kochi / The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Kochi
Court HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 25/08/2020
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags disputed amount • demand notice • stay petition • time limit
Bot Summary: No.17771 OF 2020(V) 2 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal together with Ext.P3 stay petition before the 2nd respondent. Further to a direction from this court, the 2nd respondent proceeded to dispose the stay petition by mechanically directing the petitioner to pay 20 of the disputed amount as a pre-condition for stay of the balance amounts confirmed against the petitioner, pending disposal of the appeal. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2nd respondent erred in passing the stay order without considering the merits of the case but by merely relying on CBDT Circulars. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find that Ext.P7 order of the 2nd respondent cannot be legally sustained inasmuch as it does not consider the merits of the petitioner s case in the appeal, and further has to be seen as passed under dictation, based on the instructions issued by the CBDT. As a quasi-judicial authority, the 2 nd respondent cannot see his WP(C). I therefore quash Ext.P7 order and direct the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed in the appeal and the order communicated to the petitioner. In view of the direction issued above, Ext.P7 stay order passed by the 2 nd respondent is quashed.


IN HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 3RD BHADRA, 1942 WP(C).No.17771 OF 2020(V) PETITIONER: M/S. AKAY NATURAL INGREDIENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, (FORMERLY M/S. AKAY FLAVOURS AND AROMATICS (P) LIMITED), AMBUNAD, MALAIDAMTHURUTH P.O., KIZHAKKAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM- 683561, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, MR. K.J. THANKACHAN. BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.ISAAC THOMAS SRI.P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM SHRI.VIPIN ANTO H.M. SHRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS SHRI.SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA RESPONDENTS: 1 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DCIT CORPORATE 1(1), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682018. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, POORNIMA 28/243, MANORAMA JUNCTION, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI- 682036. BY ADV.SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.08.2020, COURT ON SAME DAY DELIVERED FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.17771 OF 2020(V) 2 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order under Income Tax Act, petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal together with Ext.P3 stay petition before 2nd respondent. Further to direction from this court, 2nd respondent proceeded to dispose stay petition by mechanically directing petitioner to pay 20% of disputed amount as pre-condition for stay of balance amounts confirmed against petitioner, pending disposal of appeal. learned Senior counsel for petitioner would submit that 2nd respondent erred in passing stay order without considering merits of case but by merely relying on CBDT Circulars. 2. I have heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner and also learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents. On consideration of facts and circumstances of case as also submissions made across Bar, I find that Ext.P7 order of 2nd respondent cannot be legally sustained inasmuch as it does not consider merits of petitioner s case in appeal, and further has to be seen as passed under dictation, based on instructions issued by CBDT. As quasi-judicial authority, 2 nd respondent cannot see his WP(C).No.17771 OF 2020(V) 3 discretion as fettered by directions issued by CBDT, especially when he is performing adjudicatory function. I therefore quash Ext.P7 order and direct 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal within outer time limit of six months from date of receipt of copy of this judgment, after hearing petitioner. Recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against petitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed in appeal and order communicated to petitioner. In view of direction issued above, Ext.P7 stay order passed by 2 nd respondent is quashed. I also find Ext.P7 order to be one passed without considering merits of case and one that is passed acting on dictates of CBDT, which is referred to in that order. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns WP(C).No.17771 OF 2020(V) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20/12/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT CALCULATION OF DISALLOWANCES AND TAX TAX EFFECTED ON PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 20/01/2020 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 28/01/2020 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 12/02/2020 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 18/02/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.4533/2020. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 04/08/2020 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE Akay Natural Ingredients Private Limited, (Formerly Akay Flavours And Aromatics (P) Limited) v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, DCIT Corporate 1(1), Kochi / Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Kochi
Report Error