MUHAMMA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/11776/2016

AI Insights

The case involves the Muhamma Service Co-operative Bank Limited, which challenged an assessment order issued by the Income Tax Officer, Alappuzha, under the Income Tax Act. The bank filed an appeal and a stay petition against the assessment order. Before the stay petition was considered, the Income Tax Officer directed the Alappuzha District Co-operative Bank to freeze the bank account of the petitioner. The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam heard the case and decided to keep the recovery steps in abeyance until the stay petition was considered and decided by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755550 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH; TOJAN VATHIKULAN; K N RAJANI
• Assessee Lawyers: C A JOJO; JACOB CHACKO; MATHEWS JOSEPH
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Bank account freeze; Income Tax; Stay Petition
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/8TH CHAITHRA, 1938 WP(C).No. 11776 of 2016 (V) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- MUHAMMA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO.1670, MUHAMMA P.O., REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.2, DEVASWAM BUILDING, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 011. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), 1ST FLOOR, KOTTAYAM PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SASTHRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 3. BRANCH MANAGER, THE ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., MUHAMMA PO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX SRI.TOJAN J.VATHIKULAM R3 BY ADV. SMT.K.N.RAJANI, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: msv/ WP(C).No. 11776 of 2016 (V) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 5.2.2016. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 29.2.2016 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 29.2.2016 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 23.3.2016. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 23.3.2016. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE msv/ A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 11776 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of March 2016 JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 Assessment order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition before the 2nd respondent. It is stated that even before considering the stay petition, the respondents have taken steps to freeze the bank account of the petitioner maintained with the 3rd respondent by issuing Ext.P4 direction to the 3rd respondent. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel for the Income Tax Department and the learned standing counsel for the respondent bank.. 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions: i) The 2nd respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 stay petition within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. W.P.(c).No.11776 of 2016 : 2 : ii) Recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against petitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order, including further steps pursuant to Ext.P4 letter, shall be kept in abeyance till orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner. iii) It is made clear that during the pendency of the stay petition granted by this Court, the petitioner would be permitted to operate the bank account maintained with the 3rd respondent, which is covered by Ext.P4 letter of the 1st respondent. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE sm/ "