M/S. KUTHANUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/7128/2018

AI Insights

The case involves M/S. Kuthanur 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 assessment orders issued for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2015-16. The petitioner had filed appeals against the assessment orders and concurrently filed stay applications, which were allegedly delayed in being addressed, leading to premature actions for the realization of the assessed amounts. The court's intervention was sought to expedite the decision-making process on these stay applications and to halt any further collection actions until a decision was reached.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 763246 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAJ
• Keywords: 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 FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 7128 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) M/S. KUTHANUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.F-1563 KUTHANUR POST, PALAKKAD 678 721 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY T SURESH KUMAR BY ADV.SRI.S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENT(S): 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5 OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PALAKKAD RANGE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, EC ROAD, PALAKKAD 678 014 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPELAS) AYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR 680 001 R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7128 of 2018 (M) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24-3-2016 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR THE AY 2013-14 EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20-12-2017 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR THE AY 2015-16 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2013-14 EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2015-16 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2013-14 EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2015-16 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.A. TO JUDGE SKS P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No. 7128 of 2018 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2018 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act (the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 series assessment orders, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 series appeals before the second respondent. Ext.P3 series are the applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2 series appeals. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the second respondent in passing orders on Ext.P3 series 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 Ext.P1 series orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this W.P. (c) No.7128/2018 -2- regard, in this writ petition. 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 Ext.P3 series 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 Ext.P3 series applications for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 series assessment orders shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. SKS "