Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 27662
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
MANOJ K V – Appellant
Versus
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1) – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 13826 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR, SMT.G.REMADEVI, SMT.HARIMA HARIHARAN, SHRI.DHEERAJ SASIDHARAN, SHRI.SREE HARIDEV, SHRI.BONEY D THOMAS
For the Respondents: SHRI.P.R.AJITH KUMAR
Court directs expeditious disposal of delay/stay petitions in tax appeals and stays recovery pending decision.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged assessment and penalty orders under relevant Income Tax provisions, including sections 271F, 271AAC(1), and 271D. Rectification applications were rejected, leading to appeals with delay condonation and stay petitions. Recovery proceedings were initiated pending appeals. The court directed expeditious disposal of delay and stay applications after hearing petitioner. Ratio decidendi emphasizes prompt consideration of appellate remedies to prevent undue recovery pressure. Recovery stayed until appellate orders passed.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner being aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment and Exts.P2 to P4 orders of penalty, submitted rectification applications. The said applications were rejected by the authority as per Exts.P5 to P8. As against the same, Exts.P9 to P12 appeals were filed. As there was delay in filing Ext.P9 appeal, Ext.P9(a) delay petition was submitted. Exts.P9(b), P10(a), P11(a), P12(a) are the stay petitions submitted along with the aforesaid appeals. The petitioner is aggrieved by the recovery proceedings that are being pursued pending consideration of the aforesaid applications and appeals.
After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition. Accordingly, it is ordered that, the 3rd respondent shall take up Ext.P9(a) delay petition and Exts.P9(b), P10(a), P11(a), P12(a) stay petitions and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after giving the petitioner an opportunity for being heard. It is clarified that, Ext.P9(b) stay application needs to be considered, only if the appellate authority decides to condone the delay by considering Ext.P9(a) application. Till such orders are passed, the recovery proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 to P8 shall be kept in abeyance.
