THE THANNIRANGAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. F 1605 V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [APPEALS]

WP(C)/11606/2018

AI Insights

The case involves the Thannirangad Service Co-operative Bank, which is the petitioner, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 5, Palakkad, as respondents. The petitioner challenged the delay in the decision-making process regarding their stay application (Ext.P7) related to an assessment order (Ext.P2) issued by the second respondent for the assessment year 2011-12. The petitioner argued that the proceedings for realization of the amounts specified in the assessment order had already begun, despite the pending stay application. The court's decision focused on expediting the response to the stay application and temporarily halting further proceedings on the assessment order until a decision was made.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755239 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: 2016 (2) KHC 726 DB
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: P N MOHAN; C P SABARI; J LAKSHMI
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income Tax; Realisation of amounts; Stay Application
• Section: 156

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1940 WP(C).No. 11606 of 2018 PETITIONER: THANNIRANGAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LTD NO.1605, MATHUR P.O, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS.SRI.P.N.MOHANAN SRI.C.P.SABARI SMT.J.LAKSHMI RESPONDENT(S): 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [APPEALS], AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN RANGAR, THRISSUR -680 001. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 5, PALAKKAD, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PALAKKAD RANGE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, E.C ROAD, PALAKKAD -678 014. R1 & R2 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts 5/4/2018 WP(C).No. 11606 of 2018 (A) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBITP1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24-11-2016 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXHIBITP2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19-12-2016 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 EXHIBITP3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 19-12-2016 U/S 156 OF THE IT ACT EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19-12-2016 BEFORE IMPOSING PENALTY ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN 2016 (2) KHC 726 DB EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 23-1-2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 15-03-2018 EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 17-12-2012 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE sts 5/4/2018 P .B.SURESH KUMAR, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P .(C) No. 11606 of 2018 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2018 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an assessee under the Income T ax Act (the Act) on the rolls of the second respondent. Aggrieved by Ext.P2 assessment order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P6 appeal before the first respondent. Ext.P7 is the application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P6 appeal. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the first respondent in passing orders on Ext.P7 application 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.P2 order. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as WPC 11606 /18 -:2:- also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the first respondent to take a decision on Ext.P7 application 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.P7 application for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P2 assessment order shall be deferred. Sd/- P .B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE vps 4/4 /T rue Copy/ PS to Judge "