KANIPPAYUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. 280 V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/10405/2019

AI Insights

The case involves Kanippayur Service Co-operative Bank Limited, which filed an appeal against the assessment order for the year 2013-2014. The appeal was initially granted a stay by the second respondent, conditional upon the deposit of 30% of the demand, which the petitioner failed to comply with. Consequently, a notice under Section 221(1) was issued by the first respondent for non-compliance. The petitioner challenged this notice through a writ petition, seeking relief despite the default in complying with the earlier condition. The court, considering the importance of the statutory appeal, modified the conditions for the stay and directed the expeditious disposal of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 754774 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-04-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: W.P.(C)No.682/2019 & CM Appl.3018/2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: C A JOJO; JACOB CHACKO; MATHEWS JOSEPH
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Co-operative Bank; Income Tax; Non compliance; Stay Petition
• Section: 221(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI WEDNESDAY,THE 03RD DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1941 WP(C).No. 10405 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: KANIPPAYUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. 280 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PARAMESWARAN, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O VISWESARAN, KANIPPAYUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 517 BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, CITY PLAZA, WESTNADA, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 517 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, THRISSUR - 680 001 3 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAVAN, THRISSUR - 680 001 SC SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.10405/2019 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner, a Co-operative Bank filed appeal against the order of assessment for the year 2013-2014 before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner moved the 2nd respondent by filing Ext.P3 appeal together with stay petition. The 2nd respondent vide order Ext.P4 granted stay but imposed the condition of depositing 30% of the demand. Apparently, the petitioner has not complied with the condition imposed in Ext.P4. 2. Having regard to the non compliance with the condition incorporated in Ext.P4, Ext.P8 notice under Section 221(1) dated 21.03.2019 is issued by the 1st respondent, hence the writ petition. The petitioner in effect has framed the writ prayers in such a way that not withstanding the default in complying with the condition imposed by Ext.P4 order this Court considers and examines the challenge made to Ext.P8 and further directs disposing of Ext.P3 appeal. 3. The prayers though made carefully the intention of these prayers are easily demonstrated by Mr.Christopher Abraham. His simple objection is that there is no challenge to Ext.P4. This Court W.P.(C)No.10405/2019 3 adverts and exercise the discretion keeping in mind the order already passed by the Commissioner of Appeal-2nd respondent. In the circumstances of this case he contends that no direction could be issued by this Court even for disposing of Ext.P3 appeal. He alternatively submits that the statutory appeal since is an important legal remedy this court can exercise its discretion to put the petitioner to the condition of 20% either for stay or for directing 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly draws the attention of the court to the view taken by a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in W.P.(C)No.682/2019 & CM Appl.3018/2019 and says that some reasonable time could be considered by this Court for depositing 20% and appropriate directions are issued for disposing of the appeals. Having regard to above submission the writ petition is disposed of by this order:- (a) there shall be stay of recovery of tax determined for the assessment year 2013-2014 subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the tax demanded within six weeks from today and another 10% within six weeks thereafter. The petitioner continues to enjoy the W.P.(C)No.10405/2019 4 protection granted by this Court subject to complying with the condition imposed by the order. In default without reference to court the stay shall be deemed to have been vacated. The 2nd respondent considers and disposes of appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- S.V.BHATTI JUDGE Ac W.P.(C)No.10405/2019 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 17-03-2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 17- 03-2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2013-14 DATED 13-04-2016 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24-05-2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 08-02- 2018 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 09.06.2017 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ON REVIEW PETITION BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25- 06-2018 EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S 221(1) DATED 21-03-2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// Sd/- PA TO JUDGE "