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

WP(C)/6858/2018

AI Insights

The case involves the Vadavannur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., represented by its Secretary, K. Sasidharan, as 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 assessment orders for the years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13. The assessments were contested through appeals, and stay petitions were filed to halt the realization of the assessed amounts pending the appeal decisions. The petitioner argued that the delay in deciding the stay applications allowed the respondents to initiate proceedings for the realization of the assessed amounts, which prompted the writ petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 768839 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-03-2018
• 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; Realisation of amounts; Stay Petition
• Section: 220(6)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 6858 of 2018 -------------------- PETITIONER ----------- THE VADAVANNUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., VADAVANNUR, PALAKKAD-678 504, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K. SASIDHARAN. 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-678 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR-680 001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. 01/03/2018. WP(C).No. 6858 of 2018 (F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 24/03/2016. EXHIBIT P1(A) COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT DATED 24/03/2016. EXHIBIT P1(B) COPY OF RECTIFIED ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT DATED 24/03/2016. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29/04/2016. EXHIBIT P2(A) COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29/04/2016. EXHIBIT P2(B) COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29/04/2016. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3(A) COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3(B) COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 26/09/2016. EXHIBIT P4(A) COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 26/09/2016. EXHIBIT P4(B) COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 DATED 26/09/2016. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. 01/03/2018. P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6858 of 2018 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 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. 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 the second respondent 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 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 WPC 6858/18 -:2:- directing the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P3 series applications for stay, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. This shall be done untrammelled by the orders, if any, passed by the competent authorities under the Act in exercise of their powers under sub-section (6) of Section 220 of the Act. 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 vps 1/3 /True Copy/ PS to Judge "