M/S. VADAKKANCHERY CO-OPERATIVE SERVICE BANK LTD.NO.F-1219 V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5

WP(C)/6884/2018

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Vadakkanchery Co-operative Service Bank Ltd., the petitioner, who is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, contesting the delay by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deciding on their stay applications related to assessment orders issued by the Income Tax Officer. The petitioner had filed appeals against the assessment orders for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2013-14, and concurrently filed stay applications. The primary grievance was the delay in the decision on these stay applications, which allegedly allowed proceedings for the realization of the assessed amounts to continue.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755317 (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: S ARUN RAJ
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income Tax; Realisation of amounts; Stay Petition
• Section: 143(3)

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. 6884 of 2018 PETITIONER: M/S VADAKKANCHERY CO-OPERATIVE SERVICE BANK LTD. NO.F-1219, VADAKKANCHERY, PALAKKAD-678683, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY- IN CHARGE SUBASH T.K. BY ADV.SRI.S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENTS: 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PALAKKAD RANGE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, EC ROAD, PALAKKAD-678014. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: EL WP(C).No. 6884 of 2018 (I) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBTI P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.3.2016 PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT AND THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR THE AY 2010-11. EXHIBIT P1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.3.2016 PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT AND THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR THE AY 2013-14. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2010-11. EXHIBIT P2(A): TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONENT FOR THE AY 2013-14. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2010-11. EXHIBIT P3(A): TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FIELD BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2013-14. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE EL 1.3.2018 P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 6884 of 2018 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2018 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax 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 assessment 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. WPC 6884 /18 -:2:- 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.P3 series applications 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.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 "