PULAMTHOLE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/33746/2015

AI Insights

The case involves the Pulamanthole Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., which challenged an order (Ext.P5) from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that required the bank to deposit the full amount confirmed by an earlier assessment order as a precondition for hearing its appeal. The bank argued that the issue was already under consideration in a related Income Tax Appeal (ITA) before the High Court, where a stay against recovery had been granted. The court found that the 1st respondent had not validly exercised discretion in imposing the deposit condition for the appeal hearing, especially when a stay against recovery was in place for similar cases.

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699074 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K M V PANDALAI
• Assessee Lawyers: O D SIVADAS
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Income Tax; Recovery; Stay order
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/15TH KARTHIKA, 1937 WP(C).No. 33746 of 2015 (P) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- PULAMANTHOLE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F 1565, PULAMANTHOLE P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 679 323, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY . BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (4), TIRUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.V.P ANDALAI, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. WP(C).No. 33746 of 2015 (P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 07/03/2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 30/03/2015 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 08/04/2015 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE STAY ORDER DATED 23/08/2014 ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN I.A NO.2573/2014 IN ITA NO.198/2014. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/09/2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. =========================================== W.P.(C). No. 33746 of 2015 ===================================================== Dated this the 6th day of November, 2015 JUDGMENT The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P5 order passed by the 1st respondent, in an appeal preferred by the petitioner against an assessment order under the Income Tax Act. The case of the petitioner in the writ petition is essentially that, while passing Ext.P5 order, the 1st respondent did not exercise its discretion validly. It is submitted that the main issue involved in the appeal is also the subject matter of an ITA before this Court, in which this Court had granted a complete stay against recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the ITA has since been heard and it has been reserved for judgment. It is in the meanwhile, that Ext.P5 order has been passed in appeals preferred by the petitioner on the same issue. 2. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find that in Ext.P5 order, the 1st respondent has directed the petitioner to deposit the entire amount confirmed against him by the assessment order, as a condition for hearing the appeal. Inasmuch as the issue involved in the appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending -2- W.P.(C). No. 33746 of 2015 consideration before this Court in ITAs preferred by the petitioner and similarly situated persons, and this Court has granted a complete stay against recovery, pending disposal of the Income Tax Appeal, I quash Ext.P5 order and direct the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders in Ext.P2 appeal preferred by the petitioner, within a period of three months, after hearing the petitioner. I make it clear that, pending disposal of the appeal, the recovery steps, if any, initiated against the petitioner for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order, shall be kept in abeyance. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition, together with a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for further action. The writ petition is disposed as above. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE das /06.11.15 "