THE ELEMKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. F 1536. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

WP(C)/3845/2018HC KeralaKLHC01035435201805 February 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the first respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to decide the stay application (Exhibit P3) filed by the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court emphasized that in deciding the stay application, the first respondent should advert to the ITAT's order (Exhibit P4). Furthermore, the Court ordered that further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment order (Exhibit P1) shall be deferred until a decision is passed on the stay application. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the stay petition itself, but rather focused on expediting the decision-making process by the appellate authority.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Elamkulam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The second respondent, the Income Tax Officer, revised the petitioner's self-assessment for the assessment year 2015-2016 via an order dated December 19, 2017 (Exhibit P1). The petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the first respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (Exhibit P2), along with a stay petition (Exhibit P3). The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the first respondent in deciding the stay application. The petitioner also notes that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had disposed of an identical matter in favour of the assessee, as per Exhibit P4 order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the first respondent has unduly delayed in deciding the stay petition filed by the petitioner against the assessment order for the assessment year 2015-2016, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the petitioner's right to seek effective relief? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning procedural fairness and administrative delay). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argues that the delay in deciding the stay petition is causing prejudice. They rely on an ITAT order (Exhibit P4) in an identical matter which was disposed of in their favour, implying that such delays are not to be countenanced and that the ITAT's decision should be considered by the first respondent. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions from the revenue's side regarding the delay or the merits of the stay petition.

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 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 16TH MAGHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 3845 of 2018 PETITIONER: THE ELAMKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.F 1536, KUNNAKKAVU P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, 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. R1 & R2 BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C).No. 3845 of 2018 (E) 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 STAY PETITION PREFERRED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT AGAINST ASSESSMENT ORDER. EXHIBIT P4 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 sts P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ...................................................... W.P.(C).No.3845 of 2018 ...................................................... Dated this the 5th day of February, 2018

JUDGMENT Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act 1961(the Act) on the rolls of the second respondent. The self assessment made by the petitioner for the year 2015-2016 has been revised by the second respondent under Section 143(3) of the Act in terms of Ext.P1 order. Petitioner challenged Ext.P1 order in appeal before the first respondent. Ext.P2 is the appeal. Ext.P3 is the application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2 appeal. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the first respondent in taking a decision on Ext.P3 application for stay. It is pointed out that an identical matter has been disposed of by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in favour of the assessee, in terms Ext.P4 order. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition.

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

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I

W.P.(C).No.3845 of 2018 2 deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the first respondent to take a decision on Ext.P3 application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2 appeal, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say that in the matter of complying with the direction aforesaid, Ext.P4 order of the Tribunal shall also be adverted to. Needless also to say that until orders are passed as directed above, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 order shall be deferred. P.B.SURESH KUMAR,

JUDGE hmh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →