THE OTTOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.976 V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/6462/2018

AI Insights

The case involves The Ottoor 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 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deciding on an application for stay regarding an assessment order. The assessment order was contested by the petitioner through an appeal, and concurrently, a stay was sought to prevent the realization of the assessed amounts until the appeal was decided. The petitioner argued that similar circumstances had been previously addressed by the court, referencing a specific judgment (Ext.P11) that supported their request for a stay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755329 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: WP(C) No. 30493 of 2017, ITA No. 145/TVM/CIT/(A),TVM/2015-16, WP(C) No. 38566 of 2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: V G ARUN; T R HARIKUMAR; ARJUN RAGHAVAN; ADITHYA RAJEEV
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Delay in Decision; Income Tax; Stay Petition

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 6462 of 2018 PETITIONER THE OTTOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.976, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHENNANKODE, VADASSERIKONAM P.O., VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695143. BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN SRI.ADITHYA RAJEEV RESPONDENTS: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695003. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695003. BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 6462 of 2018 (G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 03.11.2017, ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), CHIRAYINKEEZHU. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2015-2016 DATED 12.12.2017. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12.12.2017. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE APPEAL AGAINST EXT P2 ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH CHALAN DATED 18.12.2017. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. AAAAO0619E/W-2(5)/TVM/2017-18 DATED 12.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. AAAAO0619E/W-2(5)/TVM/2017-18 DATED 15.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED AGAINST EXT. P2 ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 10.02.2018. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 10.02.2018, FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EXT.P7 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.09.2017 IN WP(C) NO. 30493 OF 2017. EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.11.2017 IN ITA NO. 145/TVM/CIT/(A),TVM/2015-16. EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2017 IN WP(C) NO. 38566 OF 2017. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- PA TO JUDGE rsr P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.6462 of 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of February, 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.P2 assessment order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P7 appeal before the second respondent. Ext.P8 is the application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P7 appeal. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the second respondent in passing orders on Ext.P8 application 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.P2 order. The specific case of the petitioner is that in the light of Ext.P11 judgment rendered by this Court on identical facts, the petitioner is entitled to the stay sought for in the appeal. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this W.P.(c).No.6462 of 2018 : 2 : 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.P8 application for stay, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the matter of complying with the direction aforesaid, the second respondent shall certainly advert to and consider Ext.P11 judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say that until orders are passed on Ext.P8 application for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P2 assessment order shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE rsr "