THE PATTIKKAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.P 455 V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

WA/1535/2019

AI Insights

The case involves the Pattikkad Service Co-operative Bank Limited, which appealed against the interim order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that insisted on a payment of 20% of the disputed tax amount pending the disposal of the appeals. The appellants argued that their liability to pay the assessed income tax was previously decided by a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court, which only allowed for a remand to the assessing authority for a fresh inquiry regarding the nature of the banks' activities. The respondents contended that the insistence on part payment was within the discretion of the appellate authority. The court, referencing the Full Bench decision, found that the insistence on payment as a condition for granting stay was not justified and modified the impugned judgments accordingly.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 697275 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-07-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: O D SIVADAS
• Keywords: Appeal; Co-operative Bank; Income Tax; Interim order; Payment Condition
• Section: 12817

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF JULY 2019 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1941 WA.No.1535 of 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 12817/2019 of HIGHCOURT DTD.31.5.2019 APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PATTIKKAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.P 455, PATTIKKAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 325, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (4), TIRUR - 676 001. OTHER PRESENT: SC-SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.07.2019, ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1529/19 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: WA.1535/19 2 C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. & R. NARAYANA PISHARADI , J. ------------------------------------------------- W.A.Nos.1529, 1530, 1535 & 1536 of 2019 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2019 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J. 1.Since the issue involved in all these writ appeals are identical, they were considered together and disposed of through this common judgment. 2.Challenge raised in the writ petitions are against the interim order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), insisting upon payment of 20% of the disputed tax amount, pending disposal of the appeals. The learned single Judge while disposing the writ petitions, had reduced the condition by limiting the payment to an amount of 10%, till the disposal of the appeals. It is challenging those judgments, these appeals are filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that, the question regarding liability of the appellant banks to pay the WA.1535/19 3 income tax assessed, is a matter which was decided by a Full Bench of this Court in the judgment in ITA.Nos.97/16 and connected cases, dated 19.3.2019 {The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287]}. In view of the dictum laid in the said judgment, it is contended that the appellate authority can only remand the matter to the assessing authority for conducting a fresh enquiry with respect to the nature of the activities of the banks in question. Hence it is contended that, the insistence for making payment of any portion of the amount under demand, pending disposal of the appeal, may cause hardships and prejudices to the banks concerned. 4. Sri.Christopher Abraham, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand contended that, the part payment insisted for granting stay is a matter which comes within the discretion of the appellate authority and this Court may not be justified in interfering with exercise of such discretion. WA.1535/19 4 5. However, taking note of the peculiar aspect involved touching the merits in the appeals based on the Full Bench decision mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the insistence for payment of a portion, as a condition for granting stay, need not be made in the cases at hand. Therefore the impugned judgments need to be modified. 6. Hence, the writ appeals are hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of the single Judge are hereby set aside. The respective writ petitions are allowed to the extent of directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and dispose of the statutory appeals filed by the appellants herein, at the earliest, taking note of the Full Bench decision cited above and to keep in abeyance recovery and collection of the tax assessed, pending disposal of such appeals. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE Sd/- R. NARAYANA PISHARADI kkb. JUDGE WA.1535/19 5 "