PUTHENCHIRA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/28170/2019HC KeralaKLHC01073194201923 October 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 second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeals (Exts. P3 and P7) within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. The Court made it clear that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by the assessment orders (Exts. P1 and P5) shall be kept in abeyance until such time as orders are passed by the second respondent and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to produce copies of the writ petition and the judgment before the second respondent for further action. The High Court did not decide the merits of the appeals themselves but directed their expeditious disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Puthenchira Service Co-operative Bank Limited, represented by its Secretary, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenged assessment orders for assessment years 2008-09 and 2016-17 (Exts. P1 and P5). The petitioner had preferred appeals (Exts. P3 and P7) along with stay petitions (Exts. P4 and P8) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the second respondent. While these appeals were pending, the petitioner also approached an authority under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, which granted a stay of recovery of the confirmed demand on payment of 20% of the amounts confirmed. The petitioner sought a direction from the High Court to direct the Appellate Authority to consider the appeals on merits, similar to orders passed in identical matters.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the Appellate Authority to consider their appeals on merits, with recovery steps for confirmed demands kept in abeyance during the pendency of the appeals, in light of previous High Court orders in similar cases? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that this Court, in identical matters, had directed the Appellate Authority to consider appeals on merits and had kept recovery steps for confirmed demands in abeyance during the pendency of the appeals. Therefore, a similar order should be passed in their case. Revenue's Contention: 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2019/1ST KARTHIKA, 1941 W.P(C).No.28170 OF 2019(U) PETITIONER: PUTHENCHIRA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO.2264, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RADHAMANI, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O.DIVAKARAN, PUTHENCHIRA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN- 680 682. BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), AYAKAR BHAVAN, NEAR SAKTHAN STAND, THRISSUR- 680001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), AYAKAR BHAVAN, NEAR SAKTHAN STAND, THRISSUR- 680001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.28170/2019 : 2 :

J U D G M E N T Against Exts.P1 and P5 assessment orders under the Income Tax Act, for the assessment year 2008-09 and 2016-17, the petitioner has preferred Exts.P3 and P7 appeals together with Exts.P4 and P8 stay petitions before the 2nd respondent. Pending consideration of the appeals, the petitioner has also approached the authority under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, and the said authority granted a stay of the recovery of the confirmed demand on condition that the petitioner pays 20% of the amounts confirmed against him by the assessment orders. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that inasmuch as this Court has, in identical matters, directed the Appellate Authority to consider the appeals, on merits, by directing that recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the assesse by the assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance during the pendency of the appeals, a similar order should be passed in his case also.

W.P.(C).No.28170/2019 : 3 :

2.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing counsel for the respondents. Taking note of the directions of this Court in connected matters, the writ petition is disposed by directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P3 and P7 appeals within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. It is made clear that recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Exts.P1 and P5 assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 2nd respondent, as directed and the order communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the 2nd respondent, for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp/23/10/19

W.P.(C).No.28170/2019 : 4 :

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AY 2008-09 DATED 24.02.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 24.02.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2008-09 DATED 15.03.2016 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 15.03.2016 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2016-17 DATED 11.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR AY 2016-17 DATED 11.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2016-17 DATED 19.01.2019 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 20.01.2019 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND LETTER FOR AY 2008-09 DATED 15.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND LETTER FOR AY 2016-17 DATED 15.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE

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 →