U.K. Yousuf vs The Income Tax Officer

[Cites 1, Cited by 1] Kerala High Court U.K. Yousuf vs The Income Tax Officer on 12 May, 2011 Author: Antony Dominic Bench: Antony Dominic IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/20TH ASWINA 1934 WP(C).No. 24029 of 2012 (C) --------------------------- PETITIONER: ========== U.K. YOUSUF, AGED 37 YEARS S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.M.K.TRADERS MAIN ROAD, HOSANGADI, KASARAGOD-671322. BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SRI.P.REJINARK SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN RESPONDENTS: =========== 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, KASARAGOD-671121. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II 4TH FLOOR, NORTH BLOCK, AYYAKKAR BHAVAN MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JV WP(C).No. 24029 of 2012 (C) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: ===================== P1 : COPY OF THE MODIFICATION ORDER DATED 12.05.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P2 : COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 20.10.2011 U/S.271(1)(C) ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR 2007-08 P3 : COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 10.11.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4 : COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 20.10.2011 U/S.271A ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT P5 : COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 10.11.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5(A) : COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 16.07.12 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P6 : COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.12.2011 ISUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE A.T.2008-09. P7 : COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 10.01.2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2008-09. P7(A) : COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 30.01.12 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2008- 09. P8 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.AAKPY2964M 2011-12 DATED 18.01.12 RECEIVED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P9 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.7.2012 IN WP(C)NO.17239/2012 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P10 : COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 24.8.2012 IN ITA 219/KSD/CIT/CLT/2011-12 P11 : COPY OF THE CIRCULAR LETTER (F.NO.404/10/2009-ITCC) DATED 1.12.2009 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES. P12 : COPY OF THE CHALAN RECEIPT DATED 2.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE BANK. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L ===================== /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE JV ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 24029 OF 2012 =================== Dated this the 12th day of October, 2012 J U D G M E N T Petitioner seeks to challenge Ext.P10, a conditional order of stay passed by the Appellate Authority under the Income Tax Act. Exts.P2 and P4 are two penalty orders passed against the petitioner and Ext.P6 is the assessment order passed against him. Aggrieved by Exts.P2 and P4, petitioner filed Exts.P3 and P5 appeals and Ext.P5(a) stay petition. Similarly, against Ext.P6 assessment order, petitioner filed Ext.P7 appeal and Ext.P7(a) stay petition. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in Ext.P9 judgment in WP(C) No. 17239/12, the appellate authority heard the stay petition and has passed Ext.P10 order directing remittance of 50% in 3 equal monthly instalments commencing from September, 2012. Petitioner says that he complied with the first instalment and has now filed this writ petition seeking to challenge the order. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, I do not find any ground warranting interference WPC.No.24029/12 :2 : with Ext.P10. In such circumstances, challenge against Ext.P10 has to be rejected and I do so. However, taking note of the financial constraints that are projected before me, I modify the time for payment specified in Ext.P10 and direct that the second instalment shall be paid by the petitioner before 9/11/2012 and the third instalment shall be paid on or before 7/12/2012. If payment is made as above, that will be accepted as in compliance with Ext.10. Subject to the above, the writ petition will stand rejected. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp