M/S.KAYILIAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/8733/2018

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Kayiliad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., the petitioner, who is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, contesting the delay by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deciding on their stay applications related to two assessment orders for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The petitioner had filed appeals against the assessment orders and simultaneously requested stays on the realization of the demanded amounts. The core issue was the alleged inaction and delay by the appellate authority in addressing these stay applications, which the petitioner argued was leading to premature realization of the assessed amounts.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 761263 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: V P NARAYANAN
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Income Tax; Realisation of amounts; Stay Petition
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 8733 of 2018 PETITIONER M/S.KAYILIAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KAYILIAD, SHORANUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679122, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SHRI.SUKUMARAN V. BY ADV.SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, PALAKKAD-678001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 8733 of 2018 (N) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATION OF REGISTRATION DATED 18.01.2017 ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL), PALAKKAD. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21.12.2016 ALONG WITH THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 22.12.2016 FOR AY-2014-15 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 23.01.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2014-15. EXHIBIT P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 23.01.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR AY-2014-15 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 29.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY-2015-16. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 4.01.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2015-16. EXHIBIT P5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 4.01.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2015-16. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 23.01.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY-2014-15. EXHIBIT P6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 4.01.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR AY-2015-16. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- PA TO JUDGE rsr P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.8733 of 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of March, 2018 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an assessee under the Income T ax Act (the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. Aggrieved by Exts.P2 and P4 assessment orders, the petitioner preferred Exts.P3 and P5 appeals before the second respondent. Exts.P3(a) and P5(a) are the applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in Exts.P3 and P5 appeals. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the second respondent in passing orders on Exts.P3(a) and P5(a) applications for stay. It is alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition that proceedings have already been initiated for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P2 and P4 orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition. W.P .(c).No.8733 of 2018 : 2 : 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to take a decision on Exts.P3(a) and P5(a) applications for stay, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say that until orders are passed on Exts.P3(a) and P5(a) series applications for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P2 and P4 assessment orders shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE rsr "