THE MARARIKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/21836/2016

AI Insights

The case involves Mararikulam Service Co-operative Bank Limited, which challenged the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Authority regarding tax assessments for the years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. The primary contention was against the dismissal of their stay petition and the method of tax assessment, which included treating interest from other banks as taxable income. The petitioner argued that the appellate authority did not consider the legality of their contentions adequately. However, the court found that the appellate authority had considered the issues with due diligence and upheld the assessment method. The court also noted the financial difficulties of the petitioner and provided a relief mechanism by allowing installment payments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755530 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: WP(C).NO.8554/2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: O D SIVADAS
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment; Co-operative Bank; Income Tax; Stay Petition
• Section: 80(P)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/7TH ASHADHA, 1938 WP(C).No. 21836 of 2016 (D) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- MARARIKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MARARIKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY . BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOTTAYAM-686 001. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.2, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. WP(C).No. 21836 of 2016 (D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.01.2016 FOR THE PERIOD 2012-13 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.01.2016 FOR THE PERIOD 2013-14 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST EXT.P1 BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE STA Y PETITION FILED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT AGAINST EXT.P1 ORDER. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY PETITION. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST EXT.P2 BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE STA Y PETITION FILED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT AGAINST EXT.P1 ORDER. EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY PETITION. EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.03.2016 IN WP(C).NO.8554/2016. EXHIBIT P11: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.06.2016 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 21836 of 2016 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of June, 2016 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P11 by which the stay petition had been dismissed, however, granting the petitioner an installment facility to pay the amount at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month for the assessment years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate authority had not considered the legality of the contentions urged, I do not think so. The appellate authority had with due application of mind, passed the order. It is clearly observed that the assesee had not filed the return of income, even after sufficient opportunities were given at various stages of the assessment proceedings. That apart, the interest on income from other banks had been treated as income from other sources. The Assessing Officer had treated the interest as taxable income of W.P.(C) No. 21836 of 2016 -2- the assessee. The appellate authority did not find any infirmity in the said method of assessment. As far as the benefit under Section 80 P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is concerned, the appellate authority observed no such statement has been made in terms of Section 80 P of the Act. 2. Taking into consideration the aforesaid factual situation, I do not think that the petitioner has made out any ground to successfully challenge Ext.P11. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner however points out that the petitioner's bank being a Co-operative Society is under severe financial difficulties to pay the amounts as directed. Petitioner seeks for an early disposal of the appeals. Taking into consideration the above said factual situation, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of as under: I. The appellate authority shall dispose of the appeals, as early as possible and not later than six months from the date of receipt of W.P.(C) No. 21836 of 2016 -3- a copy of this judgment. II. In the meantime, instead of payment of the entire amount as directed in Ext.P11, the petitioner shall pay 50% of the demand in instalments of Rs.25,000/- each as stated in Ext.P11. Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Scl/28.06.2016 "