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

WP(C)/7474/2018

AI Insights

The case involves The Thachampra Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., the petitioner, who is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, contesting the delay by the Income Tax Department (respondents 1 to 3) in passing orders on their stay applications related to assessment orders for the years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2015-16. The petitioner had filed appeals against the assessment orders and concurrently filed stay petitions. The writ petition was filed due to the alleged inaction of the appellate authorities, which was claimed to have led to the initiation of proceedings for the realization of the assessed amounts.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 697484 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2018
• 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; 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 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 7474 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) THE THACHAMPARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. THACHAMPARA P.O., MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD - 678 593, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.JAYAKUMAR. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD NO.4, PALAKKAD - 678 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI - 36. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR - 680 001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7474 of 2018 (H) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 DATED 25.03.2015. EXHIBIT P1(A). COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DATED 29.03.2016. EXHIBIT P1(B). COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.12.2017. EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 2012-13 DATED 24.04.2015. EXHIBIT P2(A). COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT 2013-14 DATED 08.04.2016. EXHIBIT P2(B). COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT 2015-16 DATED 10.01.2018. EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 2012-13 DATED 24.04.2015. EXHIBIT P3(A). COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT 2013-14 DATED 08.04.2016. EXHIBIT P3(B). COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT 2015-16 DATED DATED 10.01.2018. (true copy) Sd/- P.S. to Judge P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.7474 of 2018 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 6th 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. Ext.P1 is the assessment order of the petitioner for the year 2012-’13 and Exts.P1(a) and P2(b) are the assessment orders of the petitioner for the years 2013-’14 and 2015-’16 respectively. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the second respondent. Likewise, the petitioner preferred Exts.P2(a) and P2(b) appeals before the third respondent challenging Exts.P1(a) and P1(b) orders. 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 respondents 2 and 3 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 WPC No.7474/18 2 realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 series orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition. 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 respondents 2 and 3 to pass orders on Ext.P3 series applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in the appeals pending before them, 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. tgs "