THE PERINTHALMANNA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)

WP(C)/3833/2018HC KeralaKLHC01035423201805 February 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the first respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to decide the stay application (Ext.P3) preferred by the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court noted that in complying with this direction, the first respondent should advert to the ITAT's order (Ext.P4). Furthermore, the Court ordered that until a decision is passed on the stay application, further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be deferred. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order itself, focusing solely on the procedural delay in deciding the stay application.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Perinthalmanna Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited, 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 through an order dated 21/12/2017 (Exhibit P1). The petitioner challenged this assessment order by filing an appeal (Exhibit P2) before the first respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Along with the appeal, the petitioner filed an application for stay (Exhibit P3) against the recovery of amounts demanded by 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 referred to an identical matter disposed of by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in their favour, as per Exhibit P4 order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the first respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) has unduly delayed in deciding the stay application (Ext.P3) filed by the petitioner against the assessment order (Ext.P1) for the assessment year 2015-2016? (Question of procedure and administrative delay). Contentions: Assessee (Petitioner): The petitioner argued that there has been a delay in the disposal of their stay application by the first respondent. They highlighted that an identical matter was disposed of by the ITAT in their favour (Ext.P4), implying that their case should also be considered expeditiously. They sought directions for a timely decision. Revenue (Respondents): The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue's side regarding the delay in deciding the stay application.

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. 3833 of 2018 ----------------------- PETITIONER ----------- THE PERINTHALMANNA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED, PERINTHALMANNA, PATTAMBI ROAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT -679 322, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV.SRI.O.D.SIVADAS. RESPONDENTS: ------------ 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE -673 001. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (4), TIRUR -676 001. 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: rs. WP(C).No. 3833 of 2018 (D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1- COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21/12/2017 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 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.S. TO JUDGE rs. P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ...................................................... W.P.(C).No.3833 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.3833 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 →