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

WP(C)/5593/2018

AI Insights

The case involves the Mundur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., the petitioner, who is aggrieved by the revised self-assessments for the years 2010-11, 2013-14, and 2015-16 issued by the Income Tax Officer, the first respondent. The petitioner filed appeals against these assessments, which are pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the second respondent. Concurrently, the petitioner filed stay applications regarding the realization of the assessed amounts. The primary grievance in the writ petition was the delay by the second respondent in disposing of the appeals and the stay applications, which led to the initiation of realization steps by the tax department.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699203 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2018
• 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: Appeal; Assessment Order; Income Tax; Stay Petition
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 5593 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) THE MUNDUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., MUNDUR P.O., PALAKKAD-278592, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, JIJIMON A.J. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD NO.2, PALAKKAD-678001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR-680001. R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 5593 of 2018 (Y) 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 2013-14 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 03.07.2017. EXHIBIT P1(b) COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26.12.2017. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.04.2016. EXHIBIT P2(a) COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.04.2016. EXHIBIT P2(b) COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09.01.2018. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.04.2016. EXHIBIT P3(a) COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.04.2016. EXHIBIT P3(b) COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ VPS PS TO JUDGE P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J --------------------------------------------- W.P .(C) No.5593 of 2018 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February, 2018 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an assessee under the Income T ax Act (the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. The self assessments made by the petitioner for the years 2010-’11, 2013-’14 and 2015-’16 have been revised by the first respondent in terms of Section 143(3) of the Act as per Ext.P1 series orders. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 series orders, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 series appeals before the second respondent and the same are pending. 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 disposing of Ext.P2 series appeals. It is alleged that steps have already been taken for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 series orders from the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as WPC 5593/18 -:2:- 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 consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 series applications for stay. Ordered accordingly. This shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that till orders are passed on Exts.P3 series applications for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 series of orders shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE vps 20/2 /True Copy/ PS to Judge "