MARARIKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.1509 V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

WP(C)/32991/2016

AI Insights

The case involves Mararikulam Service Co-operative Bank Limited, which sought to quash a notice (Ext.P1) and requested an extension of time to pay the tax. The petitioner argued against the assessment orders issued by the Income Tax Officer for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The Division Bench had previously stayed the recovery of the tax amount, subject to the payment of Rs. 1,50,000 towards each assessment. The Single Judge, Justice A.M. Shaffique, dismissed the writ petition, referencing the Division Bench's decision and denying any further extension for payment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755493 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: W.A.No.1615/2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K M V PANDALAI; K N RAJANI
• Assessee Lawyers: C A JOJO; JACOB CHACKO
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Demand notice; Income Tax

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/22ND ASWINA, 1938 WP(C).No. 32991 of 2016 (Y) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- MARARIKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.1509, MARARIKULAM P.O., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.JACOB CHACKO RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) 1ST FLOOR, KOTTAYAM PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SASTHRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686001 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO.2, DEVASWAM BUILDING, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688011. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KANJIKUZHY BRANCH KANJIKUZHY, S L PURAM P.O., PIN-688523 R1 & R2 BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, R3 BY SMT.K.N.RAJANI, SC, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: bp WP(C).No. 32991 of 2016 (Y) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.09.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE AY 2012-13 DATED 25.01.2016 WITH DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE AY 2013-14 DATE D25.01.2016 WITH DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 01.03.2016 AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 20912-13 EXHIBIT P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 01.03.2016 AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2013-14 EXHIBIT P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 07.06.2016 EXHIBIT P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.21836/2016 DATED 28.06.2016 EXHIBIT P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN QA (C) NO.1615/2016 DATED 16.8.2016 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE bp A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.32991 of 2016 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of October, 2016 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P1 notice and for a direction to grant one month time to pay the tax. 2. In fact the issue is already covered by the judgment of this Court in W.A.No.1615/2016 dated 16.08.2016 wherein Division Bench of this Court while modifying the order of the Single Judge issued the following directions : “4. In such circumstances and having regard to the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, without expressing anything on merits, it is ordered that pending disposal of the appeals, recovery of the amount due under Exts. P1 and P2 shall stand stayed subject to the appellant remit Rs.1,50,000/- each towards the amounts due under Exts. P1 and P2. The remittance shall be made within three weeks from today. Subject to the above, Ext. P11 will stand set aside and the judgment of the learned Single Judge will be stand modified accordingly. The appeal is disposed of.” 3. Insofar as time has been granted by the Division Bench to remit the amount within three weeks, I don't think that this Court will be justified in interfering with the demand made thereon, on non compliance of the directions issued by the Division Bench. There is no reason to extend the time as prayed for. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE. AV "