KAKKOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. V. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE)

WP(C)/1272/2016

AI Insights

The case involves the Kakkoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., which challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) that dismissed their appeal. The appeal was initially dismissed due to a procedural defect noted by the ITAT's Registry, which required separate appeals for each assessment year covered by a single order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The High Court of Kerala, upon reviewing the submissions and the relevant legal provisions, concluded that only one appeal was necessary for the single order issued by the Commissioner, which pertained to three assessment years. The court's decision emphasized the need for procedural efficiency and clarity in the filing of appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 768334 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K M V PANDALAI
• Assessee Lawyers: C A JOJO; JACOB CHACKO; MATHEWS JOSEPH
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Year; Income Tax; Penalty; Writ petition
• Section: 156

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/13TH MAGHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 1272 of 2016 (H) --------------------------- PETITIONER : ---------------------- THE KAKKOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.163, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SHRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR, KAKKOOR POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 662. BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE), K.K.TOWERS, 5TH FLOOR, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - III, KOCHI, PANANPILLY NAGAR - 682 016. 3. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. REGISTRAR, KAKKANAD POST, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI.K.M.V.P ANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C).No. 1272 of 2016 (H) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S. 156 OF THE IT ACT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 19.09.2014 P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE DISMISSAL ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30/06/2015. P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE APEAL FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 17.09.2015. P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION STATEMENT DATED 26/10/2015 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITAT COCHIN BENCH DATED 15/02/2015. P6- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2012-13 DATED 29/04/2014. P7- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY2013-14 DATED 21/09/2015 P8 COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 19/09/2014. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL ------------------------------------------ /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE sts A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. W.P.(C).No.1272 Of 2016 ............................................................. Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2016 J U D G M E N T The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P5 order of the 3rd respondent Tribunal whereby the said Tribunal has dismissed an appeal preferred by the petitioner against Ext.P2 order of the 2nd respondent. In Ext.P5 order, the 3rd respondent Tribunal has found that the Registry has noted a defect in respect of the appeal preferred by the petitioner before it, stating that the petitioner had filed only a single appeal against Ext.P2 order which covered a period of three assessment years namely assessment years 2011-2012 to 2013-2014. The Registry was of the view that the petitioner needed to file three appeals in respect of each of the assessment years that were covered by Ext.P2 order of the 2nd respondent. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that inasmuch as the appeal before the 3rd respondent Tribunal was preferred only against a single order passed by the 2nd respondent, irrespective of the fact that it covered a period of three assessment years, the requirement in law was only to file a -2- W.P.(C). No.1272 of 2016 single appeal before the 3rd respondent Tribunal. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also the learned Standing counsel for the respondents. 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that against Ext.P2 order of the 2nd respondent, which is a single order of penalty, the petitioner need have filed only a single appeal before the 3rd respondent appellate Tribunal. The learned Standing counsel for the respondents has not brought to my notice any provisions under the rules which would require me to hold to the contrary. It is also observed that Ext.P8 order, against which the petitioner had approached the 2nd respondent through an appeal, itself imposed a penalty only for the period from 28.05.2014 to 19.09.2014. On an overall consideration of the matter, I am convinced that the petitioner need have filed only one appeal, against Ext.P2 order of the 2nd respondent which dismissed his appeal against an order of penalty that was passed against him by -3- W.P.(C). No.1272 of 2016 the 1st respondent. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P5 order and direct the 3rd respondent Tribunal to restore the appeal preferred by the petitioner on file, if it is otherwise in order, and proceed to here the matter on merits. The writ petition disposed as above. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns/2.02.16 "