THE PERUMATTY SERVICE V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/10679/2018

AI Insights

The case involves The Perumatty Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., which is the petitioner, and the Income Tax Department represented by the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as respondents. The petitioner challenged the delay in the decision-making process regarding their stay petitions related to several assessment orders issued by the Income Tax Officer for different assessment years. The writ petition was filed to seek directions for the timely resolution of these stay applications to prevent further actions on the assessment orders until the stays were considered.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 763236 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-04-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: V K SHAMSUDEEN; 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 TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1940 WP(C).No. 10679 of 2018 PETITIONER THE PERUMATTY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. POLLACHI ROAD, VANDITHAVALAM, PALAKKAD-678534, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.HEMAMBIKA. 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 SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDEEN BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 10679 of 2018 (H) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 19-12-2016 EXHIBIT P1(a) COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DATED 24-03-2016. EXHIBIT P1(b) COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 19-12-2016. EXHIBIT P1(c) COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 20-12-2017 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 28-01-2017 EXHIBIT P2(a) COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DATED 16-04-2016 EXHIBIT P2(b) COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 13-02-2017. EXHIBIT P2(c) COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 27-01-2018. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 27-01-2017. EXHIBIT P3(a) COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DATED 16-04-2016. EXHIBIT P3(b) COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 13-02-2017. EXHIBIT P3(c) COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 08-03-2018. EXHIBIT P3(d) COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ VPS PS TO JUDGE P .B.SURESH KUMAR, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P .(C) No. 10679 of 2018 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2018 JUDGMENT 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. Exts.P3, P3(a), P3(b) and P3(d) are the stay petitions 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 Exts.P3, P3(a), P3(b) and P3(d) applications. 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. WPC 10679 /18 -: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 Exts.P3, P3(a), P3(b) and P3(d) 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 the 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 vps 4/4 /T rue Copy/ PS to Judge "