THE TRIPRANGODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/8229/2016

AI Insights

The case involves the Triprangode Service Co-operative Bank Limited, which challenged the dismissal of its stay application regarding an assessment order under the Income Tax Act. The bank had filed an appeal and a stay petition against the assessment order, which was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the grounds that the bank was not willing to pay 50% of the assessed amount as a condition for the stay. The High Court found that similar cases had been decided in favor of the assessee and thus, the bank was prima facie entitled to a stay on the recovery of the assessed amounts pending the appeal's decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755558 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K M V PANDALAI
• Assessee Lawyers: C A JOJO; JACOB CHACKO; MATHEWS JOSEPH
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Income Tax; Stay Petition
• Section: 80(P)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2016/13TH PHALGUNA, 1937 WP(C).No. 8229 of 2016 (C) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): THE TRIPRANGODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO.1890, REPRESENTED BY ITS THE SECRETARY SHRI.SURESH.P.V., AGED 54 YEARS, TRIPRANGODE.P.O, TIROOR, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676108. BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO-1, OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICE, TARIFF BAZAR, OPP.TOWN HALL, TIRUR-676 101. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), KOZHIKODE -673 001. BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rvs. WP(C).No. 8229 of 2016 (C) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS : EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER 09.02.2015 FOR AY 2007-08. EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND 09.02.2015 FOR AY 2007-08. EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 30.03.2015 BY AY 2007-08. EXT. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 03.02.2015. EXT. P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER ON STAY PETITION DATED 05.10.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 09.10.2015 BEFORE ITAT, COCHIN BENCH. EXT. P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ON STAY PETITION DATED 29.01.2016 BY THE ITAT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE rvs. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.8229 OF 2016 (C) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2016 J U D G M E N T Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 appeal and Ext.P4 stay petition before the 2nd respondent. In the stay application that was filed along with the appeal, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P5 order dismissing the stay application stating that the petitioner was not ready to accept the offer of payment of 50% of the amounts confirmed against him by the assessment order as a condition for grant of stay. Ext.P5 order is impugned in the writ petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing counsel for the respondents. 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find that the issue involved in the appeals pending before the 2nd respondent is the entitlement of the petitioner to the benefit of Section 80 P of the W.P.(C).No.8229/2016 2 Income Tax Act. I note that a number of income tax appeals on the same issue have since been decided by this Court in favour of the assessee, and therefore, the petitioner would prima facie be entitled to the benefit of these judgments. Taking note of the said fact, I am of the view that, Ext.P5 order to the extent it dismisses the stay application filed by the petitioner pending disposal of the appeals cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P5 order and direct the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 appeal within a period of three months after hearing the petitioner. It is made clear that recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 2nd respondent for further action. The writ petition is disposed as above. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp/3/3/16 "