THE ELAPPULLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAKKAD

WP(C)/8521/2018

AI Insights

The case involves the Elappully Service Co-operative Bank Limited, which is the petitioner, and the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Palakkad, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thrissur, as respondents. The petitioner challenged the delay by the second respondent in deciding on their stay applications related to the assessment orders issued by the first respondent. The assessments were contested by the petitioner through appeals, and they sought stays on the financial demands arising from these assessments. The core issue was the delay in the appellate authority's decision-making, which the petitioner argued was affecting their operations due to the initiation of realization proceedings based on the disputed assessments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 697376 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-03-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: C A JOJO; JACOB CHACKO; MATHEWS JOSEPH
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Income Tax; Realisation of amounts; Stay Petition

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 8521 of 2018 PETITIONER THE ELAPPULLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO.F 1193,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY IN-CHARGE,SHRI.K.BALASUBRAMANIAN,S/O.M.KUTTYMUTHALI, ELAPPULLY.P.O,PALAKKAD DISTRICT,KERALA-678622. BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,PALAKKAD-678014. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), THRISSUR-680001. R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 8521 of 2018 (M) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE IN THIS REGARD ISSUED BY THE ASST.REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL),PALAKKAD DATED 07.02.2014 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 24.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFIED DEMAND NOTICE DATED 18.04.2017 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2010-11 DATED 19.04.2016 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 23.01.2017 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY 2010-11 DATED 19.4.2016 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 23.01.2017 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ VPS PS TO JUDGE P .B.SURESH KUMAR, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P .(C) No.8521 of 2018 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of March, 2018 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an assessee under the Income T ax Act (the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. Aggrieved by Exts.P2 & P3 assessment orders, the petitioner preferred Exts.P6 & P7 appeals before the second respondent. Ext.P8 & P9 are the applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in Exts.P6 & P7 appeals. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the second respondent in passing orders on Exts.P8 & P9 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 Exts.P2 & P3 assessment orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition. WPC 8521 /18 -:2:- 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as 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 Exts.P8 & P9 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 Exts.P8 & P9 applications for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P2 & P3 assessment orders, shall be deferred. Sd/- P .B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE vps 14/3 /True Copy/ PS to Judge "