ANNAMANADA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. 159 vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the writ petitions by directing the 1st respondent, the Appellate Authority (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)), to consider and pass appropriate orders on the Ext.P2 appeals filed by the petitioner expeditiously. The Court further directed that no coercive steps shall be resorted to against the petitioner-Bank until the appeals are disposed of. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that similar directions had been issued by the High Court in analogous matters, citing previous judgments that emphasized the need for timely disposal of statutory appeals and avoidance of coercive measures during pendency. The ratio is that High Courts can direct expeditious disposal of appeals and stay coercive recovery proceedings pending such disposal, especially when supported by precedent in similar cases involving co-operative banks.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Annamanada Service Co-operative Bank Limited, filed four writ petitions challenging income tax assessment orders for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2015-16, and 2016-17. The petitioner had filed appeals (Ext.P2) against these assessment orders before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). While the appeals were pending, the Income Tax Officer issued notices under Section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the recovery of the assessed amounts. The petitioner sought directions from the High Court to stay coercive recovery proceedings until the disposal of their appeals.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should direct the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the appeals filed by the petitioner expeditiously, and refrain from coercive recovery steps pending disposal of the appeals? (Question of procedure and administrative efficiency) The petitioner argued that in identical cases, the High Court had previously directed the appellate authority to consider appeals promptly and not to take coercive steps until the appeals were finalized. They relied on a High Court judgment in W.P.(C) No.13364/2019 and a Division Bench order in W.A. No.1529/2019, which referenced a Full Bench decision in The Mavilayi Service Co-operative bank Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287]. The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's plea for expeditious disposal and stay of coercive steps.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (4 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT [WP(C).24618/2019, WP(C).24621/2019, WP(C).24622/2019, WP(C).24623/2019 ] These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner which is a Service Co-operative Bank registered under the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act. Income tax assessment orders have been issued in respect of the Bank for the years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2016-17 and 2015-16. Aggrieved by the assessment orders, the petitioner - Bank has filed Ext.P2 appeals. Pending these appeals, the Income Tax Officer has issued Ext.P3 notices under Section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 seeking recovery of the amount of assessment.
The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in an identical case, i.e., W.P. (C) No.13364/2019, this Court has passed orders directing the appellate authority to consider the appeals preferred by the Bank first and not to take any coercive steps till the finalisation of the appeal. In judgment in W.A. No.1529/2019, an identical case, a Division Bench of this Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider
W.P.(C) No. 24618/2019 and connected cases 6 and dispose of statutory appeals filed by the appellant therein at the earliest taking note of the Full Bench decision in The Mavilayi Service Co-operative bank Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287].
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Department of Income Tax.
After perusing the pleadings, I feel that these writ petitions also can be disposed of in similar manner. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the 1st respondent - Appellate Authority to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 appeals, as expeditiously as possible and it is further directed that further steps of coercive nature shall not be resorted to against the petitioner - Bank till the appeals are disposed of. N.NAGARESH JUDGE msp
W.P.(C) No. 24618/2019 and connected cases 7
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
More judgments on Section 221(1)
- Ruby Singh, Delhi vs DCIT, CC-8, DelhiITA 3044/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2019-20
- Ruby Singh, Delhi vs DCIT, CC-8, DelhiITA 3043/DEL/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2018-19
- Ruby Singh, Delhi vs DCIT, CC-8, DelhiITA 3042/DEL/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2016-17
- Kamuben Ramanlal Patel, Daman vs Income Tax Officer, DamanITA 798/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed10 Aug 2026AY 2017-18
- Bank of Baroda (E-Vijaya Bank), Delhi vs Addl Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 1864/DEL/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed5 Aug 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
