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

WP(C)/5583/2018

AI Insights

The case involves The Kanjikode Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, the petitioner, who is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, contesting the self-assessment revision and subsequent rectification orders issued by the Income Tax Officer, the first respondent. The petitioner filed appeals against these orders and also submitted stay petitions. The primary grievance in the writ petition was the delay by the appellate authority in deciding on the stay petitions, which led to the initiation of realization steps for the disputed amounts. The court's decision focused on expediting the appellate process regarding the stay petitions and halting any further actions on the disputed tax amounts until a decision was made.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755347 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH; V K SHAMSUDEEN
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISANKAR MENON; MEERA MENON; K KRISHNA
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Income Tax; Realisation of amounts; Rectified order; Stay Petition
• Section: 143(3); 154

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 5583 of 2018 PETITIONER THE KANJIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD KANJIKODE.P.O. PALAKKAD- 678 621, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.PRAMODH. 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.1, PALAKKAD- 678 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THRISSUR- 680 001 R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 5583 of 2018 (W) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 24.3.2016 EXHIBIT P1(a) COPY OF RECTIFIED ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 3.7.2017 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 8.4.2016 EXHIBIT P2(a) COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.7.2017 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 8.4.2016 EXHIBIT P3(a) COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.7.2017 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ VPS PS TO JUDGE P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J --------------------------------------------- W.P .(C) No.5583 of 2018 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February, 2018 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an assessee under the Income T ax Act (the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. The self assessment made by the petitioner for the year 2010-’11 has been revised by the first respondent in terms of Section 143(3) of the Act as per Ext.P1 order. Later, Ext.P1 order was rectified by the first respondent in exercise of the power under Section 154 of the Act. Ext.P1(a) is the order passed in this connection. Aggrieved by Exts.P1 and P1(a) orders, the petitioner filed Exts.P2 and P2(a) appeals. Exts.P3 and P3(a) are the applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in the said appeals. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the appellate authority in taking a decision on Exts.P2 and P2(a) appeals. It is alleged by the petitioner that steps have already been WPC 5583/2018 :2:- taken for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P1 and P1(a) orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the appellate authority to consider and pass orders on Exts.P3 and P3(a) stay petitions. Ordered accordingly. This shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that till orders are passed on Exts.P3 and P3(a) stay petitions, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P1 and P1 (a) orders shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE vps 20/2 /True Copy/ PS to Judge "