KUTHUPARAMBA CO-OPERATIVE RURAL BANK LTD., vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/32833/2019HC KeralaKLHC01085694201903 December 2019Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal (Ext. P2) within six months from the date of receipt of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. The Court clarified that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the assessment/rectification orders shall be kept in abeyance until the 3rd respondent passes orders and communicates them to the petitioner. The petitioner is to furnish a copy of the writ petition and the judgment to the 3rd respondent for further action. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment/rectification orders themselves, but rather on the procedural aspect of ensuring the appeal is heard without immediate recovery pressure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kuthuparamba Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd., is challenging assessment/rectification orders (Exts. P1 and P1(a)) by filing an appeal (Ext. P2) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the 3rd respondent. The petitioner also sought a stay of recovery from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (2nd respondent) under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act. The 2nd respondent granted a stay on the condition of paying 20% of the confirmed demand. The petitioner contends that this Court has previously directed appellate authorities to consider appeals on merits while keeping recovery steps in abeyance in similar cases and seeks a similar order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the Appellate Authority to consider their appeal on merits while keeping recovery steps in abeyance, similar to orders passed in identical matters by this Court? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argues that based on previous High Court judgments in similar cases, the recovery steps for amounts confirmed by assessment orders should be kept in abeyance during the pendency of the appeals. They seek a similar direction in their case. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 220(6)

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 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941 WP(C).No.32833 OF 2019(D) PETITIONER: KUTHUPARAMBA CO-OPERATIVE RURAL BANK LTD., F 1261, P.O KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR 670 643 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY YAMUNA T.P BY ADV. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KANNUR RANGE, KANNUR 670 006 2 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NORTH BLOCK, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE 673 001 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANACHIRA, KOZHIKODE 673 001 OTHER PRESENT: SC , CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.32833 OF 2019 2

JUDGMENT Against Exts.P1 and P1(a) assessment/rectification orders under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the 3rd respondent. The petitioner also moved a stay application before the 2nd respondent in terms of Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act and the said authority granted a stay of recovery of the confirmed demand on condition that the petitioner paid 20% of amounts confirmed against him by the assessment orders. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that in as much as this Court has in identical matters, directed the Appellate Authority to consider the appeals on merits by directing that the recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the assessee by the assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance during the pendency of the appeals, a similar order should be passed in this case also.

2.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

Taking note of the direction of this Court in connected matters, the writ petition is disposed by directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. It is made clear that WP(C).No.32833 OF 2019 3 recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by the assessment order/rectification order shall be kept in abeyance till such as the orders are passed by the 3rd respondent, as directed and the orders communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the 3rd respondent, for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE SJ

WP(C).No.32833 OF 2019 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19- 12-2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2016- 17 EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22-2-2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT U/S 154 OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2016-17 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2016-17 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF STAY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2016-17 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30-09-2019 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOZHIKODE DISPOSING THE STAY PETITIONS FOR THE AY 2016-17 AND 2016- 17. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23-10-2019 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C) NO. 28170 OF 2019 IN SIMILAR CASE.

More judgments on Section 220(6)

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 220(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →