THE MANNARKKAD CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAKKAD

WP(C)/7987/2018

AI Insights

The case involves the Mannarkkad Co-op Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd., which is the petitioner, and the Income Tax Department represented by 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 the assessment orders for the years 2013-14 and 2015-16. The assessments were contested through appeals, and stay petitions were filed to halt the realization of the assessed amounts pending the appeal decisions. The core issue was the delay by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deciding these stay applications, which the petitioner argued was causing immediate financial harm as the realization proceedings had commenced.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755292 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2018
• 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
• 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 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 7987 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) THE MANNARKKAD CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD 678582, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K. KRISHNAPRASAD BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAKKAD INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD NO.1, PALAKKAD 678001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR 680001 R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7987 of 2018 (W) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 24.03.2016 EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 22.12.2017 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 05.04.2016 EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 16.01.2018 EXHIBIT P 3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 05.04.2016 EXHIBIT P 3 A COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 16.01.2018 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.A. TO JUDGE SKS P .B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P .(C).No. 7987 of 2018 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th day of March, 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. 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 also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the W.P. (c) No.7987/2018 -2- 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. SKS "