THE KARANNUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/22171/2021HC KeralaKLHC01056360202113 October 2021Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition could be disposed of with a direction. The Tribunal (4th respondent) was directed to consider and pass orders on the stay petitions (Ext.P8 and Ext.P9) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Until such a decision is taken by the Tribunal, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner were to be kept in abeyance. The ratio decidendi is that the High Court can issue directions to quasi-judicial authorities like the ITAT to expedite the consideration of stay petitions to prevent prejudice to the assessee, especially when coercive action is apprehended.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Karannur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is aggrieved by penalty orders under Sections 271D and 271E for assessment year 2015-16. These orders were passed by the Income Tax Officer (respondent 1) and upheld by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (respondent 2) and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (respondent 3). The petitioner has filed second appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (respondent 4), producing them as Ext.P6 and Ext.P7. Stay petitions (Ext.P8 and Ext.P9) were also filed before the Tribunal. The petitioner filed the present writ petition apprehending coercive proceedings before the stay petitions could be considered by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable for directing the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to consider stay petitions. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that they are apprehending coercive proceedings from the revenue even before their stay petitions are considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, a direction is necessary to ensure that their right to seek a stay is not rendered infructuous. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the respondents regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the Tribunal's obligation to consider stay petitions. The court proceeded to pass a direction based on the petitioner's apprehension.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D,Section 271E

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 21ST ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 22171 OF 2021 PETITIONER: THE KARANNUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. ELATHUR P.O., KOZHIKODE 673 303, REP.BY SHYLAJA K.P., SECRETARY BY ADVS. P.RAGHUNATHAN PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE 673 001 2 JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE -1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE 673 001 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE 673 001 4 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM 682 037 SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING WP(C) NO. 22171 of 2021 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J ------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 22171 of 2021 -------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2021

JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 orders of penalty relating to assessment years 2015-16 under Sections 271D and 271E, petitioner has preferred second appeals before the 4th respondent, copies of which are produced as Ext.P6 and Ext.P7. Petitions for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment orders have also been filed as Ext.P8 and Ext.P9. Petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings to be effected even before the petition for stay is considered. Hence this writ petition.

2.

Having considered the submissions of the Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, I am of the opinion that this writ petition itself can be disposed of with a direction.

3.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 4th respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 and Ext.P9 stay petitions, within period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such decision is taken, all coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJ/13.10.2021

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22171/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 PHOTOCOPY OF PENALTY ORDER U/S.271D DT. 26.7.2018 FOR 2015-16 Exhibit P2 PHOTOCOPY OF PENALTY ORDER U/S.271E DT. 26.7.2018 FOR 2015-16 Exhibit P3 PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.3620/2019 DT. 7.2.2019 Exhibit P4 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF CITA IN ITA 10426/CIT/CLT/2018-19 DT. 19.3.2020 Exhibit P5 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF CITA IN ITA 10424/CIT/CLT/2018-19 DT. 20.3.2020 Exhibit P6 PHOTOCOPY OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE ITAT AGAINST EXT. P4 ORDER DATED 27.5.2020 Exhibit P7 PHOTOCOPY OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE ITAT AGAINST EXT.P-5 ORDER DATED 21.5.2020 Exhibit P8 PHOTOCOPY OF STAY PETITION FILED IN EXT. P6 APPEAL Exhibit P9 PHOTOCOPY OF STAY PETITION FILED IN EXT. P7 APPEAL Exhibit P10 RR NOTICE DT. 7.10.2021

More judgments on Section 271D

All 1,725 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →