PULAMANTHOLE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/2808/2018HC KeralaKLHC01034398201812 February 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition by directing the appellate authority to take a decision on the stay application (Exhibit P4) filed by the petitioner in their appeal (Exhibit P2) against the assessment order (Exhibit P1). The appellate authority was specifically instructed to consider the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kochi (Exhibit P3) while deciding the stay petition. The court further directed that until orders are passed on the stay petition, further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment order shall be deferred. The court did not decide the merits of the appeal itself, but focused on the procedural aspect of the stay application in light of the ITAT's precedent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pulamanthole Service Co-operative Bank Limited, is a co-operative society. For the assessment year 2015-16, its self-assessment under the Income Tax Act was revised by the Income Tax Officer through an order dated December 19, 2017 (Exhibit P1). The petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (Exhibit P2). The petitioner contended that the issue in their appeal is covered by a decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kochi (Exhibit P3). The petitioner filed a stay application (Exhibit P4) along with their appeal. This writ petition was filed seeking directions for the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal in light of the ITAT's decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appellate authority should be directed to dispose of the petitioner's appeal considering the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kochi? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue raised in their appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is covered in their favour by the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kochi. They relied on Exhibit P3, the order of the ITAT, Kochi, to support their claim. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue's counsel. However, the revenue was represented by their Standing Counsel.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 23RD MAGHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 2808 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) PULAMANTHOLE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.F 1565, PULAMANTHOLE.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, - 679 323. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV.SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (4), TIRUR 676 001. R BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DG WP(C).No. 2808 of 2018 (A) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2015-16. EXHIBIT-P2: COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2015-16. EXHIBIT-P3: COPY OF THE SAID ORDER DATED 10.01.2018 ISSUED BY THE ITAT, COCHIN BENCH. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS – NIL True copy P.A to Judge P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ------------------------------------------------------------------ W.P.C.No.2808 of 2018 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2018

J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The self assessment made by the petitioner under the Income Tax Act (the Act) for the year 2015-'16 has been revised in terms of Ext.P1 order under Section 143(3) of the Act. The petitioner challenged Ext.P1 order in appeal before the first respondent. According to the petitioner, the issue raised by the petitioner in the appeal is covered in their favour by Ext.P3 decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kochi. The petitioner, therefore, seeks directions to the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner against Ext.P1 order, in the light of Ext.P3 decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kochi.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

WPC.2808/2018 2

It is seen that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 application for stay in Ext.P2 appeal preferred against Ext.P1 order. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the appellate authority to take a decision on Ext.P4 application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2 appeal, having regard to Ext.P3 decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Needless to say that till orders are passed on the stay petition as directed above, further proceedings for realization of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 order shall be deferred. (P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE)P.A to Judge DG

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →