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

WP(C)/7628/2018

AI Insights

The case involves The Pallassana Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, the petitioner, who is aggrieved by the delay in the Income Tax Commissioner's office in deciding on their stay applications related to assessment orders for the years 2011-12, 2014-15, and 2015-16. The petitioner had filed appeals against the assessment orders and concurrently filed stay applications to halt the realization of the assessed amounts. The writ petition was filed to seek a directive for a timely decision on these stay applications, as the petitioner faced immediate actions for the realization of the assessed amounts.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755302 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2018
• 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: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 7628 of 2018 PETITIONER THE PALLASSANA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.F-1589 PALLASANA, PALAKKAD-678505, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, C. KADER MOIDEEN. 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, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7628 of 2018 (C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 19.12.2016 EXHIBIT P1(a) COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED ON 22.12.2017 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 25.1.2018 EXHIBIT P2(a) COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED ON 13.02.2017 EXHIBIT P2(b) COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED ON 13.2.2017 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 EXHIBIT P3(a) COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 02.03.2018. EXHIBIT P3(b) COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED ON 02.03.2018. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- PA TO JUDGE rsr P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7628 of 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th 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. W.P.(c).No.7628 of 2018 : 2 : 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.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 rsr "