PERINTHALMANNA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, TIRUR

WP(C)/30487/2013

AI Insights

The case involves the Perinthalmanna Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., which filed a writ petition challenging the conditional order imposed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kozhikode. The order required the bank to deposit the entire assessed amount of Rs.3,03,75,450 in installments as a condition for staying the recovery process pending their appeal against the assessment order. The High Court of Kerala, presided by Justice V. Chitambares, found the condition imposed by the Commissioner not unreasonable or illegal but modified it to reduce the immediate financial burden on the petitioner by allowing a staggered payment of Rs.90 lakhs instead of the full amount.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755814 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: K ANAND; LATHA KRISHNAN; M N RADHAKRISHNA MENON; JOSEPH SEBASTIAN
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Income Tax; Interim order; Stay of recovery

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935 WP(C).No. 30487 of 2013 (I) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- PERINTHALMANNA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HOSPITAL ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN - 679 322, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE BY ADVS.SRI.K.ANAND (SR.) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN SRI.M.N.RADHAKRISHNA MENON SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN (PARACKAL) RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 OFFICE OF THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TARIFF BAZAR, TOWN HALL ROAD, TIRUR - 676 101. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) KOZHIKODE R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-12- 2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 30487 of 2013 (I) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20.03.2013 EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY STA Y PETITION DATED 21.05.2013 EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO.13989/13 DATED 04.06.2013 EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 07.08.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P6 COPY OF RECTIFICATION PETITION DATED 24-10-2013 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE SMM V.CHITAMBARESH,J. = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.30487 of 2013 = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 18th day of December, 2013 J U D G M E N T Ext.P5 conditional order passed on Ext.P3 petition for stay accompanying Ext.P2 appeal filed against Ext.P1 order of assessment is impugned. Ext.P5 order inter alia directs the petitioner to deposit the whole amount of Rs.3,03,75,450/- due under Ext.P1 order ofcourse in instalments. 2. A detailed consideration of the merits of the case at this juncture would prejudice the contentions of either parties in the statutory appeal pending. Suffice it to say that the condition imposed in Ext.P5 order is not so unreasonable or illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. I however modify Ext.P5 interim order by permitting the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.90 lakhs as a condition for stay of recovery of the amounts due under Ext.P1 order. The petitioner has reportedly remitted Rs.30 lakhs on 31-10-2013 and it would suffice if he remits the balance 60 lakhs in two instalments. 4. The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.30 lakhs on or before 31-12-2013 and another sum of Rs.30 lakhs on or before W.P.(C) No.30487 of 2013 2 28-2-2014. The amount if deposited as above would operate as a stay of recovery of the amount due under Ext.P1 order pending Ext.P2 appeal. 5. The coercive steps as against the petitioner can continue if the conditions above are not complied with. The recovery steps shall be put on hold if the petitioner deposits a total sum of Rs.90 lakhs on or before 28-2-2014 as directed. The writ petition is disposed of. V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE smm "