M/S. JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITALS V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/4481/2013

AI Insights

The case involves M/S. Jubilee Mission Hospital, represented by its Secretary Fr. Francis Pallikunnath, who filed a writ petition against the Income Tax Officer and the Branch Manager of South Indian Bank. The dispute arose from an income tax assessment for the year 2009-10, where the hospital was assessed a tax liability of Rs.2,51,93,020. After appealing this assessment, the appellate authority partially allowed the appeal but did not revise the demand, leading to a new demand of Rs.2,87,20,040 and the freezing of the hospital's bank account. The petitioner sought relief from the High Court, arguing that the appellate order was not being implemented, and the new demand was premature.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699222 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: SUMATHY DANDAPANI; MATHEW KURIAKOSE
• Keywords: Appeal; Appellate order; Assessment Order; Bank account freeze; Income tax assessment
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/26TH MAGHA 1934 WP(C).No. 4481 of 2013 (I) -------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- M/S. JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL, THRISSUR-680 005, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY FR.FRANCIS PALLIKUNNATH. BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S) : ---------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), AAYKAR BHAVAN, S.T.NAGAR THRISSUR-680 001. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER SOUTH INDIAN BANK, EAST FORT, THRISSUR-680 005. R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 4481 of 2013 (I) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.22-1-2013 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 7/2/2013 NO.AAAAJ1080A/W1(1)/ R1/TCR/2009-10. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DATED 13-2-2013 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 13-2-2013 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 13-2-2013 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL ORDER OF ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) DATED 23-12-2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J ........................................ W.P.(C).4481/2013 .............................................. Dated this the 15th day of February, 2013 JUDGMENT 1.Ext.P6 is an assessment order passed against the petitioner under the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2009-10. In terms of the said assessment order, the total liability of the petitioner is Rs.2,51,93,020/-. Against the assessment order, petitioner filed appeal which ended up in Ext.P1 order. By this order, the appeal has been partially allowed. Grievance of the petitioner is that the appellate order has not been given effect to and revised demand has not been made and that in the meanwhile, 1st respondent has issued Ext.P2 to the 2nd respondent demanding payment of Rs.2,87,20,040/-. As a result, by Ext.P2, Bank account of the petitioner has been frozen. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 2.Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. W.P.(C).4481/13 2 3.Standing Counsel states that the respondents are in the process of giving effect to Ext.P1 and according to him, even if Ext.P1 is given effect, that will only wipe off a part of the liability. 4.Now that by Ext.P1, the appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P6 has been disposed of, necessarily the said order has to be given effect. It is at that stage, Ext.P2 communication has been issued to the respondent Bank which, in my view, is premature. 5.In that view of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the 1st respondent shall give effect to Ext.P1 appellate order. This the 1st respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, having regard to the fact that Ext.P6 has not been completely annulled by Ext.P1 order, I direct that subject to the petitioner remitting Rs.50 Lakhs within ten days from today, recovery pursuant to Exts.P2 and P6 will stand stayed. W.P.(C).4481/13 3 6. Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 1st respondent for compliance. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mrcs /true copy/ sd/- P.A. To Judge "