THE VEMBAYAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 3121 V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/8290/2018

AI Insights

The case involves the Vembayam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., which is the petitioner, and the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as respondents. The petitioner challenged the delay in the decision-making process regarding a stay application related to an assessment order for the year 2011-2012. The petitioner had already filed an appeal against the assessment order and sought a stay on the realization of the assessed amounts, citing a similar case (Ext.P7) where an absolute stay was granted. The court's intervention was sought to expedite the decision on the stay application to prevent further actions on the assessment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755286 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: WP(C) No 38566 of 2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: V G ARUN; T R HARIKUMAR
• Keywords: 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. 8290 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) THE VEMBAYAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 3121 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KONCHIRA P.O, VEMBAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 615 BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3),OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 003 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003 R BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT 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. 8290 of 2018 (I) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 12-12-2014,ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL), NEDUMANGAD EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2011-2012 DATED 18-12-2017 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18-12-2017 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. AAAAV4391G/ITO/W-2(3)/TVM/2017-18 DATED 09-02-2018 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED AGAINST EXT P2 ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 10-02-2018. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 10-02-2018,FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EXT-P5 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21-12-2017 IN WP(C) NO 38566 OF 2017 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.A. TO JUDGE SKS P .B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P .(C).No. 8290 of 2018 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of March, 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 first respondent. Aggrieved by Ext.P2 assessment order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P5 appeal before the second respondent. Ext.P6 is the application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P5 appeal. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the second respondent in passing orders on Ext.P6 application for stay. It is pointed out that in the light of Ext.P7 judgment rendered by this Court in a matter challenging the order passed in a stay petition preferred in an identical appeal, the petitioner is entitled to an absolute stay in the matter. 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 assessment order. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this W.P. (c) No. 8290/2018 -2- 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 second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P6 application for stay, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. This shall be done having regard to Ext.P7 judgment rendered by this Court. Needless to say that until orders are passed on Ext.P6 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 "