VENJARAMOOD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.2419 V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/6915/2018

AI Insights

The case involves the Venjaramood Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., which is the petitioner, contesting an assessment order issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner filed an appeal against the assessment order and concurrently filed a stay application. The primary grievance in the writ petition was the delay by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deciding the stay application, which the petitioner argued entitled them to an absolute stay based on a previous judgment by the High Court. The court's decision focused on expediting the decision on the stay application and preventing any further action on the assessment order until a decision was made.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 758744 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-03-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: WPC No.38566/2017
• 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; ARJUN RAGHAVAN; ADITHYA RAJEEV
• 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 THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 6915 of 2018 PETITIONER: VENJARAMOOD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.2419, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VENJARAMOODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT- 695 607. BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN SRI.ADITHYA RAJEEV RESPONDENTS: 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. BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT 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. 6915 of 2018 (L) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 17.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 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. AAAAV3571C/ITO/W-2(3)/TVM/2017-18 DATED 9.2.2018 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED AGAINST EXT.P2 ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 10.2.2018 EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 10.2.2018, FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EXT.P5 APPEAL EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2017 IN WPC NO.38566/2017 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE EL 1.3.2018 P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6915 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.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 regard, in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as WPC 6915 /18 -:2:- 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 vps 1/3 /True Copy/ PS to Judge "