THE POLPULLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, PALAKKAD

WP(C)/8222/2018

AI Insights

The case involves the Polpulley Service Co-operative Bank Limited, 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 their stay applications related to two assessment orders. These orders were issued for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2014-15, and the petitioner had already filed appeals against these orders. The main legal issue was the delay in the appellate authority's decision-making process regarding the stay applications, which the petitioner argued was affecting their operations due to the initiation of realization proceedings based on the disputed assessment orders.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 765927 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: C A JOJO; JACOB CHACKO; MATHEWS JOSEPH
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Income Tax; Realisation of amounts; Stay Petition

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 8222 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) THE POLPULLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.F 1198 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SHRI.MANIKANDAN.K, POLPULLY.P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT KERALA, PIN- 678 552 BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, PALAKKAD- 678 014 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THRISSUR-680 001 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 8222 of 2018 (C) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASST. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL0 PALAKKAD DATED 7.2.2014 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.3.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 22.3.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 20.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2010-11 DATED 18.4.2016 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2014-15 DATED 24.01.2017 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY-2010-11 DATED 18.4.2016 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY-2014-15 DATED 27.1.2017 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT (true copy) Sd/- P.S. to Judge P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.8222 of 2018 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 12th March, 2018. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act (the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. Aggrieved by Exts.P2 and P3 assessment orders, the petitioner preferred Exts.P6 and P7 appeals before the second respondent. Exts.P8 and P9 are the applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in the 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.P8 and P9 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 Exts.P2 and P3 orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as WPC No. 8222 of 2018 2 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.P8 and P9 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 Exts.P2 and P3 assessment orders shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. tgs "