THE CHITTUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/7057/2018

AI Insights

The case involves The Chittur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., represented by its Secretary, C. Girijadevi, as the petitioner, and the Income Tax Officer 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 assessment orders for the years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13. These assessments were contested through appeals, and the petitioner sought stays on the realization of the assessed amounts, which were allegedly being pursued despite the pending appeals and stay applications. The court's intervention was sought to expedite the decision on these stay applications to prevent further realization actions based on the contested assessments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755313 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISANKAR MENON; MEERA MENON; K KRISHNA
• Keywords: Appeal; 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 FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 7057 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) THE CHITTUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. CHITTUR, PALAKKAD-678 101, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, C.GIRIJADEVI. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD NO.5, PALAKKAD-678001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR-680 001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7057 of 2018 (F) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 15.3.2016. EXHIBIT P1(A): COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 15.3.2016. EXHIBIT P1(B): COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 16.3.2017. EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.4.2016. EXHIBIT P2(A): COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.4.2016. EXHIBIT P2(B): COPY OF APPEAL FIELD BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.4.2016. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.4.2016. EXHIBIT P3(A): COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.4.2016. EXHIBIT P3(B): COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.4.2016. (true copy) Sd/- P.S. to Judge P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.7057 of 2018 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 2nd March, 2018. J U D G M E N T 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 orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as WPC No.7057 of 2018 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 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. tgs "