THE MOWANCHERRY CO-OPERATIVE RURAL BANK LTD.NO.F 1279 V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOZHIKODE

WP(C)/3677/2012

AI Insights

The case involves the Mowancherry Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd., which filed writ petitions against the Income Tax Department concerning the recovery of taxes due from them under various assessment orders. The petitions were filed during the pendency of appeals against these orders, apprehending recovery actions. The court considered the ongoing appeals and the procedural remedies available to the petitioners, particularly the filing of stay petitions with the appellate authority. The court's decision focused on ensuring that the petitioners could utilize the statutory remedies available to them without the pressure of immediate recovery actions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755954 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, Co-operative Societies Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: M SASINDRAN; V VENUGOPAL
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Income Tax; Recovery proceedings; Stay Petition
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/25TH MAGHA 1933 WP(C).No. 3677 of 2012 (H) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- THE MOWANCHERRY CO-OPERATIVE RURAL BANK LTD.NO.F 1279 P.O. MOWANCHERRY KANNUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.V.VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOZHIKODE 673001. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 KANNUR 670 001. R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-02-2012,ALONG WITH WPC. NO.3683 OF 2012 & WPC. NO.3713 OF 2012 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.3677/2012 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 29/7/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S SOCIETY. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PRE-ASSESSMENT NOTICE DT 23/11/2011 EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DT 21/12/2011 ALONG WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST THE EXT P3. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT 6/1/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT 2/2/2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NOs. 3677, 3683 & 3713 OF 2012 ============================ Dated this the 14th day of February, 2012 J U D G M E N T Petitioners herein are Co-operative societies registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. Their grievance is mainly regarding the apprehended recovery of tax due from them for the assessment orders issued under the Income Tax Act against which appeals filed by them are pending. 2. In so far as WP(C) No. 3677/12 is concerned, Ext.P3 is the assessment order and Ext.P4 is the appeal. Thereafter they made Ext.P5 request to the assessing officer to defer recovery, which prayer was rejected. 3. In so far as WP(C) No. 3683/12 is concerned, Ext.P6 is the order of assessment and Ext.P7 is the appeal filed by them. Here again, the petitioner made a similar request to the Income Tax Officer, which was rejected by Ext.P9 communication. 4. In so far as WP(C) No. 3713/12 is concerned, Ext.P12(a) is the order of assessment against which they filed Ext.P13 appeal. Similar request made to the Income Tax Officer was rejected by Ext.P14 and thereupon they filed Ext.P15 stay petition WPC.No.3677, 3683 & 3713/12 :2 : before the appellate authority, which is also pending. 5. It is during the pendency of the aforesaid appeals, apprehending recovery, they have filed these writ petitions. 6. I heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents who points out that the statutory remedy available to the petitioners to avoid payment of tax due under the assessment orders is to file stay petitions before the appellate authority and that such stay petitions have not been filed in two of the aforesaid appeals. 7. Having considered the rival submissions made and taking note of the fact that the appeals filed by the petitioners are also pending before the appellate authority, I direct the petitioner in WP(C) Nos. 3677/12 and 3683/12 to file stay petitions in Ext.P4 appeal in WP(C) No. 3677/12 and Ext.P7 appeal in WP(C) No. 3683/12. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible at any rate within two weeks from today. 8. If stay petitions are filed as above, those stay petitions and also Ext.P15 stay petition in WP(C) No. 3713/12 shall be considered by the 1st respondent appellate authority with notice to the petitioners and as expeditiously as possible and orders WPC.No.3677, 3683 & 3713/12 :3 : thereon shall be passed. 9. It is directed that subject to the filing of the stay petitions as above, the recovery proceedings for realising the tax due from the petitioner in WP(C) Nos. 3677/12 and 3683/12 will be kept in abeyance until orders are passed. 10. Similarly, in view of the fact that stay petition has already been filed by the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3713/12, I direct that recovery action for the tax due shall be kept in abeyance until orders are passed on the stay petition as directed above. 11. Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment and the writ petition before the appellate authority for compliance. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp "