KERALA STATE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE I (2)

WP(C)/5025/2015

AI Insights

The case revolves around the petitioner, M/s. Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., challenging the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents following an appellate order under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner contended that the appellate order, which led to the demand for differential tax, was not served to him, preventing him from appealing it earlier. During the proceedings, the petitioner received the appellate order and sought a stay on the recovery proceedings to file an appeal. The court, considering the circumstances and the submissions made, decided to keep the recovery proceedings in abeyance for one month to facilitate the filing of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699378 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL NAIR; R SREEJITH; C S SULEKHA BEEVI; ROSIE JOSEPH; SOUMYA PRAKASH
• Keywords: Appellate order; Differential tax; Income tax appellate tribunal; Recovery proceedings
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/18TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 5025 of 2015 (C) --------------------------- PETITIONER : ------------------------ M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.R.SREEJITH SMT.C.S.SULEKHA BEEVI SMT.ROSIE ATHULYA JOSEPH KUM.SOUMYA PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE I (2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - I, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 003. 3. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003. R1 TO R3 BY ADV.SRI.JOSE JOSEPH,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C).No. 5025 of 2015 (C) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19.3.2013 FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010 - 11 EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010 - 11. EXT.P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 28.11.2014 FOR THE YEAR 2010 - 11. EXT.P-5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.2.2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P-6: - A: TRUE COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT EXT.P-6: - B: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 12.2.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P-6: - C: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 12.2.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL ------------------------------------------ /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ................................................. W.P.(C) No.5025 of 2015 (C) ............................................... Dated this the 9th day of March, 2015 JUDGMENT The petitioner in the present writ petition had approached this Court challenging the steps taken by the respondents to demand differential tax from the petitioner under the Income Tax Act, pursuant to the passing of Ext.P5 order. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, while Ext.P5 order was passed consequent to an appellate order, the appellate order itself had not been served on the petitioner and hence, he could not prefer an appeal against the said appellate order before the appellate Tribunal under the Income Tax, 1961. 3. When the matter was called up today, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, he has since received a copy of the appellate order and he would like to prefer an appeal against the said order. The only prayer in the writ petition now is, for keeping the recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 in abeyance, till such time as the petitioner files an appeal against the appellate order, that has now been communicated to him. 4. I have heard Sri.Anil D.Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jose Jose, the learned Standing counsel for the respondents. W.P.(C) No.5025 of 2015 © 2 5. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar and taking note of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that he has since been served with a copy of the appellate order, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions : (i) The recovery steps initiated against the petitioner for recovery of the amounts confirmed against him by Ext.P5 order shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month, so as to enable the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the appellate order, now communicated to him, before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. (ii) It is made clear that, the stay against recovery proceedings granted above, shall cease to be in force on the expiry of the period of one month. The writ petition is disposed as above. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE AMV/09/03/ "