The Paravur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.1801 V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WA/738/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Paravur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., which appealed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dismissing their writ petition. The writ petition sought a direction to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to consider a delay condonation application and to stay recovery proceedings based on the first appellate order. The Single Judge had dismissed the petition under the assumption that the Tribunal lacked the power to condone the delay. The High Court, upon review, found that the Tribunal did possess the discretionary power to condone the delay as per statutory provisions and thus allowed the appeal, setting aside the Single Judge's decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 759230 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P G JAYASHANKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: ARJUN RAGHAVAN; T R HARIKUMAR; POOJA PANKAJ
• Keywords: Delay condonation; Income tax appellate tribunal; Recovery proceedings; Stay Petition
• Section: P5; P3; P4

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M. MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WA NO. 738 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.17762 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER THE PARAVUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.1801 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARAVUR P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691301 BY ADVS. ARJUN RAGHAVAN T.R.HARIKUMAR POOJA PANKAJ RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KARBALA JUNCTION, KOLLAM., PIN - 691350 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NORTH BLOCK, DELHI., PIN - 110001 3 THE REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, BLOCK NO.C1 & C2, 1ST FLOOR, KAKKANAD, COCHIN., PIN - 682030 OTHER PRESENT: SC-P.G.JAYASHANKAR. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.No.738 of 2024 2 J U D G M E N T ============ Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Co-operative Bank aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.05.2024 of a learned Single Judge in W .P(C)No.17762 of 2024. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are as follows: The appellant herein had approached the writ court against an order of the First Appellate Authority under the Income Tax Act, against which order they had preferred Ext.P3 appeal, Ext.P4 stay petition and Ext.P5 delay condonation application before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 3. The limited prayer in the writ petition was for a W.A.No.738 of 2024 3 direction to the Appellate Tribunal to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 delay condonation application and to stay the recovery proceedings for recovery of amounts confirmed against the appellant by the first appellate order, till such time as the Tribunal had an occassion to consider and pass orders on the dealy condonation applicaton. 4. The learned Single Judge, proceeding on the assumption that the Appellate Tribunal did not have a power to condone the delay in question, thought it appropriate to dismiss the writ petition. It is against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge that the appellant is before us in this appeal. 5. We have heard Sri.Arjun Raghavan, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.P .G.Jayashankar, the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department. 6. It is the submission of Sri.Arjun Raghavan, the learned counsel for the appellant that, as per the provisions of the statute, the Appellate Tribunal has the power to condone W.A.No.738 of 2024 4 the delay in question and it is a discretionary power that has to be exercised based on the provisions of the statute and by considering the explanation of the assessee for the delay. Taking note of the said submission and finding that the statutory provisions empower the Tribunal to condone the delay in question, we deem it appropriate to allow the writ appeal, by setting aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, and with the following directions: The Appellate Tribunal, before which Ext.P3 appeal, Ext.P4 stay petition and Ext.P5 delay condondation application preferred by the appellant are pending, shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 delay condonation application within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The recovery steps for recovery of the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by the orders of the first appellate authority shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the Appellate Tribunal on the delay condonation application as directed and the order communicated to the appellant. W.A.No.738 of 2024 5 The writ appeal is disposed as above. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/- SYAM KUMAR V .M. JUDGE smm "