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

WP(C)/6836/2018

AI Insights

The case involves The Moolathara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., which is the petitioner, and the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as respondents. The petitioner challenged the delay by the second respondent in deciding on the stay applications related to the assessment orders issued for the years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13. The petitioner had filed appeals against these orders and sought stays on the realization of the assessed amounts, which were allegedly being pursued despite the pending stay applications. The court's intervention was sought to expedite the decision-making process regarding these stays to prevent further actions on the assessed amounts until the appeals were resolved.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 761272 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-03-2018
• 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; K KRISHNA
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Income Tax; Realisation of amounts; Stay Petition
• Section: 220(6)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 6836 of 2018 ---------------------- PETITIONER : ----------- THE MOOLATHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., MEENAKSHIPURAM, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIJAYAN C. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS : ----------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD NO.5, PALAKKAD -678001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR-680001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: bp 01/3/2018 WP(C).No. 6836 of 2018 ------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : --------------------- P1: COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE R1 FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 21/3/2016. P1(a): COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 ISSUED BY R1 DATED 21/3/2016. P1(b): COPY OF RECTIFIED ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 ISSUED BY R1 DATED 21/3/2016. P2: COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2 DATED 28/4/2016. P2(a): COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2 DATED 28/4/2016. P2(b): COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2 DATED 28/4/2016. P3: COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2. P3(a): COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2. P3(b): COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2 P4: COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE R1 FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 26/9/2016 P4(a): COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE R1 FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 26/9/2016. P4(b): COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BYT HE R1 FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 DATED 26/9/2016 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE bp 01/03/2018 P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6836 of 2018 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st 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 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 case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition WPC 6836 /18 -:2:- 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. This shall be done untrammelled by the orders, if any, passed by the competent authorities under the Act in exercise of their powers under sub-section (6) of Section 220 of the Act. 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 vps 1/3 /True Copy/ PS to Judge "