M/S PERINGOTUKURISSI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.P-519 V. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/6879/2018

AI Insights

The case involves M/S Peringottukurissi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, which is the petitioner, and the Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as respondents. The petitioner challenged the delay in the decision-making process regarding their stay applications related to the assessment orders issued for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2013-14. The petitioner had filed appeals against these orders and simultaneously requested stays on the realization of the assessed amounts. The core issue was the alleged delay by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in adjudicating the stay applications, which prompted the filing of the writ petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 697257 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-03-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAJ
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income Tax; Realisation of amounts; Stay Petition
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 6879 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) ------------- M/S PERINGOTTUKURISSI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.P-519, PARUTHIPULLY, PALAKKAD-678 573, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY K.VIJAYASANKARAN UNNI. BY ADV.SRI.S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENT(S): ------------ 1.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, OFFICER OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PALAKKAD RANGE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, EC ROAD, PALAKKAD-678 014. 2.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR,THRISSUR-680001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: TS WP(C).No. 6879 of 2018 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXHIBIT P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19.12.2016 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR THE AY 2011-12. EXHIBIT P1(A):_ TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.3.2016 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR THE AY 2013-14. EXHIBIT P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2011-12. EXHIBIT P2(A):- TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2013-14. EXHIBIT P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2011-12. EXHIBIT P3(A):- TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2013-14. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS - NIL ------------------------------ /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE TS 01/03/2018 P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6879 of 2018 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2018 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act (the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 series assessment orders, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 series appeals before the second respondent. Ext.P3 series are the applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2 series appeals. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the second respondent in passing orders on Ext.P3 series applications for stay. It is alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition that proceedings have already been initiated for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 series assessment 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 Standing Counsel for the respondents. WPC 6879/18 -:2:- Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P3 series applications for stay, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say that until orders are passed on Ext.P3 series applications for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 series assessment orders shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE vps 1/3 /True Copy/ PS to Judge "