KANIPPAYYUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WA/1250/2019

AI Insights

The case involves Kanippayur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., which appealed against a judgment that required the bank to deposit 20% of the assessed tax amount for the year 2013-14 as a condition for staying recovery proceedings. The original judgment had reduced the deposit requirement from 30% to 20% but maintained the staggered payment schedule. The bank sought further indulgence to extend the time for the first installment payment. The court, acknowledging the bank's cooperative status and the prima facie liability, granted an extension for the deposit but maintained the overall requirement for the staggered payment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 758603 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISANKAR MENON; MEERA MENON
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2013-14; Deposit Condition; Income Tax; Statutory Appeal; Writ Appeal
• Section: 221(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2019 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1941 WA.No. 1250 of 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 10405/2019 of HIGH COURT APPELLANT/PETITIONER: KANIPPAYYUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO. 280, P.O. KANIPPAYYUR, THRISSUR 680 517, REPRESENTED BY TIS SECRETARY NASEER M.M. AGED 62, S/O. MOIDUNNY.M.A. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GURUVAYUR 680 517. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, TAX APPEALS, 3RD FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, THRISSUR 680 001. 3 THE TAX RECVOERY OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR 680 001. OTHER PRESENT: SC,IT DEPT.- SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: WA.No. 1250 of 2019 -:2:- C.K.ABDUL REHIM & R.NARAYANA PISHARADI,JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.A. No.1250 of 2019 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - – - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of May,2019 J U D G M E N T Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.10405 of 2019 is in appeal aggrieved by the judgment dated 3rd April, 2019, to the extent it directed deposit of 20% of the amount of tax determined for the assessment year 2013-14, pending disposal of Ext.P3 statutory appeal filed against the assessment. The respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition. 2. In the statutory appeal instituted by the appellant against the assessment, Ext.P4 interim stay was granted subject to condition of deposit of 30% of the demand. The appellant failed to comply with the condition. As a consequence, Ext.P8 Notice under Section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961 was issued. The writ petition was filed challenging the said notice and also seeking direction for disposal of Ext.P3 appeal by the appellate authority. The learned Judge was pleased to interfere with the condition stipulated by the appellate authority and reduced the amount WA.No. 1250 of 2019 -:3:- insisted for deposit, to 20%. Therefore relief was granted staying the recovery, subject to condition of the appellant depositing 10% of the tax demanded within six weeks from the date of the judgment and another 10% within six weeks thereafter. It was made clear that, in default of payment, the stay granted will be deemed to have been vacated. There was also a direction issued to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of six months. It is aggrieved by the said judgment, the above writ appeal is filed. 3. Upon hearing arguments of the counsel for the appellant and Sri. Christopher Abraham, learned counsel for the respondents, we are not persuaded to interfere with the judgment impugned. Having confronted with the situation, learned counsel for the appellant sought indulgence of this Court to extend the period stipulated for deposit of the first instalment by a further period of one month from today. 4. We take note of the fact that the appellant is a Co-operative Bank and the liability for payment of the amount, prima facie, cannot be disputed. However, we are inclined to show indulgence in extending the time limit stipulated, in order to facilitate deposit of the amount to satisfy the condition. WA.No. 1250 of 2019 -:4:- 5. Hence, the impugned judgment in W.P.(C) No.10405 of 2019 is modified to the extent of allowing deposit of 20% of the disputed amount under demand within a period of six weeks from today. The writ appeal is disposed of as above. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE Sd/- R. NARAYANA PISHARADI JUDGE DST //True copy// P.A. To Judge "