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

WP(C)/6259/2018

AI Insights

The case involves the Mankara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., the petitioner, who is aggrieved by the assessment and rectification orders issued by the Income Tax Officer, the first respondent, for the years 2010-11 and 2015-16. The petitioner filed appeals against these orders and simultaneously filed stay applications with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the second respondent. The core issue in the writ petition was the delay by the second respondent in adjudicating the stay applications, which the petitioner argued was leading to premature realization of the assessed amounts. The court's decision focused on ensuring a timely resolution of the stay applications to prevent any undue financial burden on the petitioner before the appeals could be heard.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755331 (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: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISANKAR MENON; MEERA MENON
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income Tax; Realisation of amounts; Rectification Order; Stay Petition
• Section: 143(3)

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. 6259 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) THE MANKARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. MANKARA P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 643, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.BABU. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON 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 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. 6259 of 2018 (F) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 24.03.2016. EXHIBIT P1(A) COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26.12.2017. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF RECTIFIED ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12.5.2017. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.04.2016. EXHIBIT P3(A) COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 02.06.2017. EXHIBIT P3(B) COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06.01.2018 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.04.2016. EXHIBIT P4(A) COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08.01.2018. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :NIL //TRUE COPY// sd/- P.A. TO JUDGE SKS P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.6259 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 Tax Act (the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 series assessment orders and Ext.P2 rectification order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 series appeals before the second respondent. Ext.P4 series are the applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P3 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.P4 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 W.P. (c) No. 6259/2018 -2- 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 of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P4 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.P4 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. SKS "