The judgment addresses a writ petition filed by M/S. PRATHIBHA TRADERS seeking directions for the disposal of their appeal and stay application in response to the assessment of their income for the assessment years 2017-18. The court directed the 2nd respondent to decide the appeal within two months and, if not possible, to decide the stay application within the same period.
M/S. PRATHIBHA TRADERS v. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, and Others
A judgment from the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, dated the 3rd day of November 2023, regarding a writ petition with the case number WP(C) NO. 36272 OF 2023. The petitioner in this case is M/S. PRATHIBHA TRADERS, represented by its managing partner, Musthafa Kamal Vilakkeri, and the respondents are the Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, the Income Tax Officer, and the Manager of Punjab National Bank Eramangalam Branch, Kozhikode.
The judgment states that the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
The assessment proceedings were completed in respect of the income of the petitioner for the assessment years 2017-18, and the total income of the petitioner for the said period was assessed as Rs.34,14,093/- under Section 147 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) read with Section 144 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) and 144B (of Income Tax Act, 1961).Subsequently, a demand notice was issued, and penalty proceedings were directed to be initiated. The petitioner then filed an appeal (Exhibit P-2) along with a stay petition (Exhibit P-3) before the 2nd respondent.
The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the appeal was filed on time, no decision had been taken on the appeal or the stay application. The petitioner was facing recovery proceedings in respect of the tax assessed on their income by the Exhibit P-1 order. The counsel requested that the 2nd respondent be directed to decide the appeal and stay application in a time-bound manner, and until a decision is taken, no coercive proceedings against the petitioner should be initiated.
The judgment states that the court considered the submissions and directed the 2nd respondent to decide the appeal pending before it in accordance with the law within a period of two months. If it was not possible to decide the appeal finally within two months, the stay application was to be decided within a period of two months from the date of the judgment in accordance with the law. With these directions, the writ petition was finally disposed of.
This judgment provides insight into the legal proceedings related to the petitioner’s appeal and stay application in response to the assessment of their income for the assessment years 2017-18.
Q1: What was the relief sought by the petitioner?
A1: The petitioner sought directions for the disposal of their appeal and stay application in response to the assessment of their income for the assessment years 2017-18.
Q2: What was the court’s directive regarding the appeal and stay application?
A2: The court directed the 2nd respondent to decide the appeal within two months and, if not possible, to decide the stay application within the same period.
Q3: What is the significance of this judgment?
A3: This judgment highlights the importance of timely disposal of appeals and stay applications in income tax cases, providing clarity on the legal proceedings in such matters.