THE KERALA UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/6261/2018

AI Insights

The case involves the Kerala University Employees Co-operative Society Ltd, which is the petitioner, challenging an assessment order issued by the Income Tax Officer under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner had initially self-assessed but was later reassessed, leading to a dispute over the tax demand. The petitioner filed an appeal and a stay application with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), while also seeking a stay from the assessing authority, which was partially granted. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax upheld the assessing officer's decision, which the petitioner is contesting in this writ petition. The court's decision focuses on ensuring that the appellate authority addresses the stay application promptly, deferring any further tax collection until a decision is made.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 697297 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISANKAR MENON; MEERA MENON; K KRISHNA
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Income Tax; Self-assessment; Stay Petition
• Section: 143(3); 220(6)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 6261 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) THE KERALA UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD KERALA UNIVERSITY BUILDING, PALAYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033, REPRESENTED BY SAJ..S.V. SECRETARY BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO.S(1), OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, 1ST FLOOR, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AYAKAR BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003 3. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003 R BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 6261 of 2018 (G) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.A. TO JUDGE SKS P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.6261 of 2018 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of February, 2018 J U D G M E N T 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 has been revised under Section 143(3) of the Act as per Ext.P1 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority namely, the second respondent. Ext.P3 is the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Ext.P4 is the application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P3 appeal. In the meanwhile, the petitioner approached the assessing authority for stay, invoking sub-section (6) of Section 220 of the Act. It is stated by the petitioner that though the assessing authority granted the stay sought for by the petitioner, directed the petitioner to pay 20% of the demand raised pursuant to Ext.P1 order. The petitioner though sought a review of the said order W.P.(c).No.6261 of 2018 : 2 : before the third respondent, in terms of Ext.P5 order, the third respondent affirmed the order passed by the first respondent. Ext.P5 order is under challenge in the writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to pass orders on Ext.P4 application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P3 appeal. Ordered accordingly. This shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, untrammelled by Ext.P5 order passed by the third respondent. Needless to say that until orders are passed on Ext.P4 application preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P3 appeal, further proceedings for the realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 order shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE SKS "