MYLAPRA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK TD.(NO.639) V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

WP(C)/18399/2017

AI Insights

The case involves Mylapra Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., which challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding a stay on the recovery of tax confirmed by an assessment order for the year 2014-2015. The petitioner argued that the issue had been previously decided in their favor by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which followed a judgment of the High Court. The court found that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not granting a stay on the recovery of the tax during the pendency of the appeal, given the favorable previous decisions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 763261 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-06-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH; T P PRADEEP
• Assessee Lawyers: A KUMAR; P J ANILKUMAR; G MINI; P S SREE PRASAD
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Income Tax; Stay of recovery
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2017/12TH JYAISHTA, 1939 WP(C).No. 18399 of 2017 (Y) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------- MYLAPRA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.(NO.639) P.O.MYLAPARA TOWN, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 678, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR.JOSHUA MATHEW BY ADVS.SRI.A.KUMAR SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR SMTG.MINI(1748) SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOTTAYAM 686 001. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2, THIRUVALLA 689 101. 3. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM 686 001. 4. THE SECRETARY, THE PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 645. R1 TO R3 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.V. WP(C).No. 18399 of 2017 (Y) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY PETITION EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER FOR APPLICATION FOR STAY PETITION EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 18/2015 DATED 2.11.2015 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ORDER EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE BANK EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.5.2017 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL ----------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE K.V. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. W.P.(C).No.18399 of 2017 ............................................................. Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2017 J U D G M E N T The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P4 order of stay passed by the 1st respondent in an appeal preferred by the petitioner against Ext.P1 assessment order for the assessment year 2014-2015. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that the issue involved in the appeal has already been decided in favour of the petitioner by Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal, which in turn follows a judgment of this Court. It is, therefore, the case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent erred in directing the payment of the entire tax amount confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 order, and denying a stay of recovery during the pendency of the appeal before the 1st respondent. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing counsel for the Income Tax Department and the learned Standing counsel for the 4th -2- W.P.(C).No.18399 of 2017 respondent bank. 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that, in the light of the decision of the Tribunal, which is squarely in favour of the petitioner on the issue in question, it was not open to the 1st respondent to reject the stay petition filed by the petitioner. I, therefore, quash Ext.P4 order and direct the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal expeditiously after hearing the petitioner. I make it clear that till such time as orders are passed by the 1st respondent in the appeal and the orders communicated to the petitioner, recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance. Needless to say, in the light of the directions in this judgment, the 1st respondent shall also forthwith recall Ext.P8 communication issued to the 4th respondent bank. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns/02.06.17 -3- W.P.(C).No.18399 of 2017 "