THE THANNIRANGAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. F. 1605 V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [APPEALS]

WP(C)/11650/2018

AI Insights

The case involves the Thannirangad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, the petitioner, who is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, contesting an assessment order issued by the Income Tax Officer, the second respondent. The petitioner filed an appeal against the assessment order and simultaneously requested a stay on the realization of the assessed amounts. The primary grievance in the writ petition was the delay by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deciding the stay application, which allegedly led to the initiation of proceedings for the realization of the assessed amounts. The court's intervention was sought to expedite the decision on the stay application and to halt any further realization proceedings until the stay application was resolved.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 697329 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: 2016 (2) KHC 726 DB
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: P N MOHAN; C P SABARI; J LAKSHMI
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income Tax; Realisation of amounts; Stay Application
• Section: 156

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1940 WP(C).No. 11650 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) THE THANNIRANGAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LTD NO. 1605, MATHUR PO, PALAKKAD BY ADVS.SRI.P.N.MOHANAN SRI.C.P.SABARI SMT.J.LAKSHMI RESPONDENT(S): 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [APPEALS] AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN RANGER, THRISSUR 680001 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO., PALAKKAD, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PALAKKAD RANGE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, E.C. ROAD, PALAKKAD 678014 R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 11650 of 2018 (E) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.02.2016 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 24.03.2016 U/S. 156 OF THE IT ACT EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.03.2016 BEFORE IMPOSING PENALTY ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN 2016 (2) KHC 726 DB EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 20.04.2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 19.04.2016 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 17.12.2012 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03.10.2016 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.A. TO JUDGE SKS P .B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P .(C).No.11650 of 2018 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of April, 2018 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an assessee under the Income T ax Act (the Act) on the rolls of the second respondent. Aggrieved by Ext.P2 assessment order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P6 appeal before the first respondent. Ext.P7 is the application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P6 appeal. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the first respondent in passing orders on Ext.P7 application 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 Ext.P2 order. 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 the first respondent to take a decision on Ext.P7 W.P. (c) No.11650/2018 -2- application 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 Ext.P7 application for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P2 assessment order shall be deferred. Sd/- P .B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. SKS "