THE THANCHINGANADAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/3801/2018HC KeralaKLHC01035391201805 February 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, considering the facts and circumstances, deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the first respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to decide the stay application (Exhibit P3) within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court emphasized that in complying with this direction, the first respondent should also advert to the ITAT's order (Exhibit P4). Furthermore, the Court directed that until orders are passed on the stay application, further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment order (Exhibit P1) shall be deferred. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, but rather directed the authority to decide the pending application.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Thanchinganadam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. For the assessment year 2015-2016, the second respondent, the Income Tax Officer, Ward (4), Tirur, revised the petitioner's self-assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, issuing an assessment 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), and also filed a stay petition (Exhibit P3) against the assessment order. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the first respondent in deciding the stay application. The petitioner also points to an identical matter disposed of by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, in their favour, as per Exhibit P4.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the first respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has unduly delayed in deciding the stay petition (Exhibit P3) filed by the petitioner against the assessment order (Exhibit P1) for the assessment year 2015-2016, thereby violating principles of natural justice and causing prejudice to the assessee? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning procedural fairness under the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argues that the delay in deciding the stay petition is causing prejudice. They rely on an order of the ITAT (Exhibit P4) in an identical matter, suggesting a precedent for timely disposal. The petitioner seeks appropriate directions for the expeditious disposal of the stay application. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents was heard, but their specific contentions are not detailed.

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. 3801 of 2018 ------------------ PETITIONER ------------ THE THANCHINGANADAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 10152, THACHINGANADAM PO, PATTIKKAD (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, 679325, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BY ADV.SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE 673001 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD (4), TIRUR 676001 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: sdr/- WP(C).No. 3801 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 2015-2016 EXHIBIT P3` COPY OF THE 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 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL -------------------- /TRUE COPY/ sdr/- PA TO JUDGE P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ...................................................... W.P.(C).No.3801 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 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.

W.P.(C).No.3801 of 2018 : 2 :

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

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I 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 →