THE TRITHALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/34624/2022HC KeralaKLHC01073881202222 November 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing that if the petitioner files an appeal against the assessment order (Ext.P6) before the First Appellate Authority within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, the period during which the writ petition was pending (from 28.10.2022 to 22.11.2022) shall be excluded for the purpose of determining the limitation period for filing the appeal. If the appeal is filed within this extended period and found to be within time after exclusion, any recovery pursuant to the assessment order shall be kept in abeyance until the appeal is decided by the First Appellate Authority. The court did not decide on the merits of the deductions claimed by the petitioner.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Trithala Service Co-operative Bank Limited, approached the High Court of Kerala aggrieved by an order of assessment for the assessment year 2020-21. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was bad in law as it failed to grant certain entitled deductions. The respondent, Income Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi, submitted that in similar cases, the High Court had directed that statutory appeals be decided, and demands be kept in abeyance until then. The petitioner's counsel then stated that the petitioner might be out of time to file an appeal against the assessment order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to certain deductions which were allegedly not granted in the assessment order for AY 2020-21, making the order bad in law. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argues that the assessment order is bad in law because it did not grant them the benefit of certain deductions to which they are entitled. Revenue's contention: The respondent Income Tax Officer points out that in several cases with similar deduction claims, the High Court has directed that statutory appeals be decided and demands be kept in abeyance. The respondent sees no reason to deviate from this practice. 2. Whether the petitioner can file a statutory appeal against the assessment order, considering they may be out of time. Assessee's contention: The petitioner's counsel states that the petitioner may be out of time for filing an appeal against the assessment order. Revenue's contention: Not recorded.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. TUE AY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 34624 OF 2022 PETITIONER: THE TRITHALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED P.O. BOX NO.1, TSCB BUILDINGS, THRITHALA POST, PATTAMBI, KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.K.V.RAGESH, PIN - 679534 BY ADVS. ANIL D. NAIR TELMA RAJU P.K.BIJU EDATHARA VINEETA KRISHNAN ANJANA A. RESPONDENT: INCOME TAX OFFICER ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 ADV. JOSE JOSEPH, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2022 The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by Ext.P6 order of assessment issued under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2020-21. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has not been given the benefit of certain deductions which the petitioner is entitled to and therefore the assessment order is bad in law.

2.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Department states and points out that in several cases were similar claim for deduction has been made, this Court has disposed of writ petitions directing any statutory appeal filed against the order of assessment shall be decided and till such time any demand pursuant to the order of assessment shall be kept in abeyance. It is submitted that there are no circumstances which would require this Court to take a different view in this matter.

3.

Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be out of time for filing an appeal against Ext.P6 order of assessment. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Department, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing that if the petitioner files an appeal against Ext.P6 order of assessment before the First Appellate Authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the period during which this writ petition was pending before this Court namely, from 28.10.2022 till today (22.11.2022) shall be excluded for the purpose of determining any period of limitation within which such appeal had to be filed. If the petitioner files an appeal within the period as aforesaid and it is found to be within time after excluding period as above, any recovery pursuant to Ext.P6 order of assessment shall be kept in abeyance till such appeal is decided by the First Appellate Authority. GOPINATH P. JUDGE SKP/22-11

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34624/2022 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 3.3.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT DATED 12.5.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16.05.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.8.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 6.9.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U/S.272A(1) (D) DATED 25.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2020-21. RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS:NIL TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →