The Kerala High Court held that the Writ Court does not exercise parallel jurisdiction with appellate authority and directed the Income Tax Authority to consider the petition.
Manath Muhammed Ismail, the petitioner filed a writ of mandamus or direction like mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to dispose of appeals and stay applications preferred by the petitioner/assessee against the assessment orders under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The petitioner is a real estate broker. A search was conducted in the business premises of Veekay Group and Archbishop’s House and other associated persons on 26.08.2018. In the return of his income for the assessment year 2016-17, the petitioner had shown an income of Rs. 3,00,000/- only. There were entries in respect of the payments made to the petitioner by the said group and, therefore, a notice under Section 153 C of the IT Act, 1961 was issued and served on the petitioner. In response to the said notice, the petitioner had filed his return of income on 09.12.2020 offering an income of Rs. 6,89,870/-.
Subsequently, notices under Section 143(2) was issued and served on the petitioner calling for the details of the cash receipts of the petitioner which were reflected in the documents received in the search. After considering the reply and the evidence collected during the search operation, the cash allegedly received by the petitioner was added to his income.
The petitioner has approached the appellate authority with a considerable delay of three months along with the application for condoning the delay and stay petition. Now the petitioner has come before this Court to grant interim order regarding the recovery of the tax assessed in the assessment orders which cumulatively comes to Rs. 1,28,57,490/-.
The Court enquired from the Counsel for the petitioner that whether the petitioner is willing to deposit 20% of the assessed tax so that the remaining amount can be ordered to be stayed till the disposal of the application for condoning the delay and stay petition. However, the Counsel for the petitioner submits that the assessee is not in a position to deposit even the 20% of the assessed tax amount.
“The Court does not exercise parallel jurisdiction with the appellate authority. The petitioner’s appeals along with the applications for condoning the delay and stay petitions are pending and as the petitioner is not willing to deposit even 20% of the assessed tax, this Court would not like to stay the demand as assessed in the assessment orders.” Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh held.
The Court disposed of the writ petition with direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders following the law on the applications of the petitioner for condoning the delay as well as the stay petitions expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
