UMAYANALLOOR SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK V. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE AUTHORITY

WP(C)/33731/2019

AI Insights

The case involves Umayanalloor Service Cooperative Bank, which is the petitioner, challenging the inaction of the Income Tax Appellate Authority (the first respondent) regarding the stay petitions filed along with appeals against the rectified assessments for the years 2010-11 to 2014-15. The petitioner argued that despite filing the stay petitions, there was no decision from the first respondent, and in the meantime, actions were being taken to realize the amounts specified in the rectified assessments. The court, considering the precedents and the circumstances, ordered the first respondent to expedite the decision-making process on the stay petitions and maintain the status quo on the petitioner's accounts until a decision is made.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 754407 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: V JAYAPRADEEP; ANN SUSAN GEORGE; O A NURIYA; ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Rectification; Income Tax; Stay Petition
• Section: 253(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941 WP(C).No.33731 OF 2019(N) PETITIONER: UMAYANALLOOR SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK UMAYANALLOOR P.O.,KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP SMT.ANN SUSAN GEORGE SMT.O.A.NURIYA SRI.ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE AUTHORITY (THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO 4, KOLLAM-691 001. 3 THE FEDERAL BANK,KOTTIYAM BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, KOLLAM-691 571 4 THE ICICI BANK,KOTTIYAM BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, KOLLAM-691 571 5 THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, KOLLAM-691 571 6 THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, PALLIMUKKU, KOLLAM-691 001. 7 THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER,KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM- 691 571. 8 STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM- 691 571. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.33731 OF 2019(N) 2 W.P .(C) No.33731 of 2019 ----------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an assessee under the Income T ax Act (the Act). The assessments of the petitioner for the years 2010-11, 2011- 12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 have been rectified in terms of Exts.P1 to P5 orders. Aggrieved by Exts.P1 to P5 orders, the petitioner preferred Exts.P6 to P10 appeals under Section 253(1) of the Act. The petitioner has also preferred stay petitions along with Exts.P6 to P10 appeals. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the inaction on the part of the first respondent in taking a decision on the stay petitions preferred along with Exts.P6 to P10 appeals. It is alleged by the petitioner that in the meanwhile, steps have been taken for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P1 to P5 orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard in the writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the Income T ax Department. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the WP(C).No.33731 OF 2019(N) 3 case as also the orders passed by this court in similar and identical writ petitions, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the stay petitions preferred by the petitioner along with Exts.P6 to P10 appeals, within two weeks from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say that until orders are passed as directed, status quo shall be maintained by respondents 3 and 4 Banks as regards the accounts of the petitioner therein are concerned. All other issues are left open. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR Mn JUDGE WP(C).No.33731 OF 2019(N) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 03.09.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 03.09.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 03.09.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 03.09.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 03.09.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 13.11.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 13.11.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 13.11.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 13.11.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 13.11.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 25.11.2019 EXHIBIT P12 COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 15.11.2019 EXHIBIT P13 COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 07.12.2019 EXHIBIT P14 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.11.2019 EXHIBIT P15 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.11.2019 //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE "