THE ALIPARAMBA SERVICE CO-OP.BANK LTD. V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/10391/2010

AI Insights

The case involves the Aliparamba Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, which challenged the sustainability of a notice issued under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act. The primary contention was that the petitioners did not qualify as a 'person' under Section 2(31) of the Income Tax Act, nor as 'Banking Companies' under the Banking Regulation Act. Previous judgments had declined interference with similar matters, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court, which granted an interim stay. The High Court of Kerala, therefore, decided to keep the proceedings in abeyance pending the Supreme Court's final decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 698987 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Writ Appeal 2333/2009
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, Banking Regulation Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: U K DEVIDAS
• Keywords: Income Tax; Notice; Primary Agricultural Credit Societies; Writ petition; Banking Companies
• Section: 133(6); 2(31)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10391 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- THE ALIPARAMBA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.F.1653, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT, ALIPARAMBA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (CIB), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.)KOZHIKODE. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CIB), COCHIN,ERNAKULAM. 4. UNION OF INDEA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,NEW DELHI. BY ADV. MR. JOSE JOSEPH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2010, ALONG WITH W.P.(C )No.10391 OF 2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) Nos. 10391, 10403,10409 & 10476 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 26th March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners, who are projected as Primary Agricultural Credit Societies, are challenging the sustainability of Ext.P1 notice issued under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act raising many a ground, mainly contending that the petitioners do not come within the purview of 'person' as defined under Sec.2(31) of the Income Tax Act, nor are they 'Banking Companies' as defined under the Banking Regulation Act. 2. When similar matters came up for consideration before this Court earlier, interference was declined; which led to Writ Appeal 2333/2009 and connected cases, leading to Ext.P3 judgment; wherein interference was declined; however giving some specific directions as to the course to be pursued by the Income Tax authorities. The main point considered was, whether the notice similar to Ext.P1 was issued with 'prior permission' of W.P.(C) Nos. 10391, 10403,10409 & & 10476 OF 2010 2 the Director or the Commissioner, as the case may be, and if the notice did not disclose any such prior permission, the matter was directed to be re-examined by the authority concerned and if it was found that there was no prior permission, further proceedings were permitted to be pursued only after obtaining such permission. 3. Being aggrieved of the verdict passed by the Division Bench, the matter has already been taken up before the Apex Court by filing SLP (C) 3976/2010, which has been admitted, also granting interim stay as borne by Ext.P4. This being the position, this Court finds that the respondents are not justified in proceeding with Ext.P1 notice any further, till the matter is settled by the Supreme Court. 4. In the above circumstances, the respondents are directed to keep all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 in abeyance for the time being and steps shall be pursued only subject to final outcome of the SLP now pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein Ext.P4 interim order W.P.(C) Nos. 10391, 10403,10409 & & 10476 OF 2010 3 has been passed. All the Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk "