MUNDUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), THRISSUR

WP(C)/21315/2017

AI Insights

The case involves Mundur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., which appealed against an assessment order for the year 2009-10. The bank sought a stay on recovery steps during the appeal process, which was partially granted by the Income Tax Officer but required a 15% payment of the assessed amount. The bank contested this condition, citing a favorable prior decision by the High Court. The court agreed with the bank, quashing the 15% payment condition and directing that recovery actions be paused until the appeal is resolved.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 771516 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: I.T.A.No.212/2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL NAIR; R SREEJITH; P PAUL; MEKHALA BENNY
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Conditional stay; Income Tax; Recovery Steps
• Section: 220(6)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/7TH ASHADHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 21315 of 2017 (L) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ MUNDUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. MUNDUR P.O. THRISUR - 680 549 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.K.P. BABU BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.R.SREEJITH SRI.P.JINISH PAUL KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY RESPONDENT: -------------------- INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), THRISSUR BY SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sdr/- WP(C).No. 21315 of 2017 (L) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------ EXHIBITP1 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 04-11-2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 EXHIBITP4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.F.NO.AABAM 987 1B DATED 23-05-2017 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM (F NO.404/72/93-ITCC) DATED 29-2-2016 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29-07-2016 IN WPC NO.25262 OF 2016 (G) RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE sdr/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.21315 OF 2017 (L) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of June, 2017 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P4 conditional order of stay passed under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act. It is the case of the petitioner that, against the assessment order, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the additional 2nd respondent, and the issue, which is the subject matter of the appeal, stands covered in favour of the petitioner by the decision dated 15.2.2016 of this Court in I.T.A.No.212/2013. It is stated that during the pendency of the appeal before the additional 2nd respondent, when the petitioner was confronted with recovery steps, he had approached the 1st respondent through an application under Section 220(6), and the 1st respondent, instead of granting an unconditional stay, directed the petitioner to pay 15% of the amount confirmed against the petitioner by the assessment order, as a condition for grant of stay against recovery of the balance amounts, pending disposal of the appeal by the additional 2nd respondent. W.P.(C).No.21315/2017 2 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing counsel for the respondents. 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, and taking note of the fact that the issue involved in the appeal before the additional 2nd respondent stands covered in favour of the petitioner by the decision of this Court referred above, I quash Ext.P4 order, to the extent, it imposes a condition of payment of 15% of the tax liability as a condition for stay of recovery pending disposal of the appeal by the additional 2nd respondent. I further make it clear that the 2nd respondent shall pass orders in the appeal, after hearing the petitioner, and till such time as orders are passed by the additional 2nd respondent, as directed, and communicated to the petitioner, recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by the assessment order shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed as above. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp/29/6/17 "