MARARIKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA

WP(C)/9421/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Mararikulam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., which was aggrieved by the assessment orders issued by the Income Tax Officer for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The bank appealed these orders, and the appeals were decided shortly before the initiation of proceedings for the realization of the assessed amounts. The petitioner contended that the timing of the service of the appellate orders did not allow sufficient time to arrange for further appeals, thus challenging the procedural fairness of the realization proceedings. The court's decision to defer the realization proceedings was aimed at ensuring the petitioner's right to a fair hearing and appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 697434 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: C A JOJO; JACOB CHACKO; MATHEWS JOSEPH
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Income Tax; Realisation of amounts
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 9421 of 2018 PETITIONER MARARIKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.1509, A 741, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SUJITH. P, S/O. PUSHKARA, MARARIKULAM NORTH P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 688 523. BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH RESPONDENTS 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, ALAPPUZHA - 688 011. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOTTAYAM-686001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 9421 of 2018 (C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASST.REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) CHERTHALA DATED 23.03.2013. EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25.01.2016 FOR AY 2012-13 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25.01.2016 FOR AY 2013-14 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 A COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2012-13 DATED 07.03.2016 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 A COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2013-14 DATED 07.03.2016 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 A COPY OF THE APPEAL ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.02.2018 FOR AY 2012-13. EXHIBIT P7 A COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.02.2018 FOR AY 2013-14. EXHIBIT P8 A COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR DATED 12.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, COCHIN IN ITA NO. 405/C/2014 DATED 14.10.2016. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE SD P .B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ================== W.P .(C.) No.9421 of 2018 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of March, 2018 JUDGMENT The petitioner was an assessee on the file of the first respondent under the Income T ax Act. Exts.P2 and P3 are the assessment orders of the petitioner for the assessment years 2012-'13 and 2013-'14. Aggrieved by Exts.P2 and P3 assessment orders, the petitioner preferred Exts.P4 and P5 appeals. Exts.P4 and P5 appeals have now been disposed of in terms of Exts.P6 and P7 orders on 27.02.2018. It is stated by the petitioner that they were served with Exts.P6 and P7 orders only on 08.03.2018 and even before the petitioner making arrangements for preferring appeals against Exts.P6 and P7 orders, proceedings were initiated by the first respondent for W .P .(C.) No. 9421/2018 2 realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P2 and P3 orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that Exts.P6 and P7 orders were served on the petitioner only on 08.03.2018, I deem it appropriate to defer the proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P2 and P3 orders for a period of one month, so as to enable the petitioner to challenge Exts.P6 and P7 orders in appeal. Ordered accordingly. This writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- P .B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE sd "