Case Law Details
Kanakiliyanallur Narayanan Nehru Vs ITO (Madras High Court)
In a recent decision, the Madras High Court addressed the appeal of Kanakiliyanallur Narayanan Nehru against the Income Tax Officer’s order, focusing on the pre-deposit requirement pending appeal. This case highlights the court’s consideration of financial constraints, particularly for senior citizens.
The petitioner filed an appeal regarding the assessment year 2012-13, which had been pending for over four years. Seeking interim relief, the petitioner applied for a stay on the tax demand, eventually leading to a petition before the second respondent in August 2023. The court’s order, dated June 6, 2024, examined the petitioner’s plea, emphasizing the hardship caused by the mandatory 20% pre-deposit of the disputed amount.
Senior Counsel argued for the petitioner, invoking guidelines emphasizing the need for expeditious disposal of appeals, especially for senior citizens facing prolonged litigation. The court acknowledged these arguments, pointing out that financial stringency alone should not dictate the decision on pre-deposit waivers. Despite potential liability, the court allowed the petitioner to pay the required amount in 18 monthly installments, reflecting a nuanced approach balancing financial obligations with the petitioner’s circumstances.
On behalf of the respondents, Mr. B. Ramanakumar countered, highlighting protective additions and potential confirmations of demands, suggesting no grounds for overturning the order granting installment relief.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
An order dated 06.06.2024 by which the second respondent disposed of a stay petition is challenged in this writ petition.
2. Against an assessment order in respect of assessment year 2012-13, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority. Such appeal is pending for more than four years as on date. The petitioner had applied for an interim stay pending disposal of such appeal before the assessing officer. By order dated 22.05.2020, an interim stay was granted until 31.01.2021 or until the disposal of the first appeal, whichever is earlier. Since the period of stay had lapsed, the petitioner filed a stay petition before the second respondent on 11.08.2023. Such petition was disposed of by the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to instruction No.1914 and the amendments made thereto. He points out that financial stringency is not the only consideration for waiving the 20% pre-deposit and that the overall facts and circumstances should be taken into consideration. He further submits that the appeal should be disposed of expeditiously since more than four years have elapsed and the petitioner is a senior citizen. By referring to guidelines issued on 07.03.2024 with regard to the expeditious disposal of appeals, he submits that the petitioner’s case qualifies for expeditious disposal both on account of the quantum of demand and on account of the fact that the petitioner is a senior citizen.
4. Mr. B. Ramanakumar, learned senior standing counsel, accepts notice for the respondents. He submits that protective additions were made in respect of several persons and that there is reason to believe that such additions may be confirmed as regards the petitioner. In these circumstances, he submits that no case is made out for interference with the impugned order inasmuch as such order granted the petitioner the right to remit 20% in 18 installments.
5. The petitioner’s appeal is on record. Such appeal was filed in January 2020. Therefore, more than four years have elapsed since the date of filing of the appeal. From the affidavit, it is evident that the petitioner is a senior citizen. In these facts and circumstances, a case is made out for expeditious disposal of the appeal.
6. As regards the application for stay, such application is required to be considered by taking into account the classical principles of prima case case, balance of convenience and financial stringency. On perusal of the impugned order, the second respondent appears to have taken into account the financial stringency pleaded by the petitioner and has permitted the petitioner to make the pre-deposit in 18 installments. Since I find no infirmity in such order, I find no reason to interfere with the same.
7. For reasons aforesaid, W.P.No.16569 of 2024 is disposed of by directing the third respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 14.01.2020 in respect of assessment year 202223 within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. No costs.
Author Bio
