M/S. PATTITHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/9616/2018HC KeralaKLHC01041206201820 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, considering the facts and circumstances, directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the stay applications (Exts.P3(a), P7(a), P8(a), and P9(a)) within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also ordered that further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment orders (Exts.P2, P4, P5, and P6) shall be deferred until orders are passed on these stay applications. The judgment does not decide the merits of the appeals or the stay applications themselves, but focuses on the procedural delay.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Pattithara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by assessment orders for Assessment Years 2010-11, 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16, passed by the Income Tax Officer (1st respondent). The petitioner filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent) along with stay applications. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the 2nd respondent in passing orders on these stay applications. The petitioner also states that recovery proceedings have been initiated for the amounts demanded by the assessment orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in deciding the stay applications by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) warrants intervention by the High Court through a writ petition? (Question of procedure and administrative delay) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the delay in deciding the stay applications is causing prejudice, especially since recovery proceedings have commenced. They seek a direction for expeditious disposal of the stay applications. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the delay or the merits of the stay applications. The revenue was represented by their Standing Counsel.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 220(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 9616 of 2018 PETITIONER M/S. PATTITHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. PATTITHARA P.O, PALAKKAD - 679 534, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SANTHOSH KUMAR P.M BY ADVS.SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.VANDANA MENON SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN RESPONDENTS: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3, PALAKKAD - 678 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAM NAGAR, THRISSUR - 680 001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 9616 of 2018 (B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 1.12. ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ASST. ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 22.3.2016 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2010-11 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 23.4.2016 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2010-11 SUBMITTED BY EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 23.4.2016 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2010-11 SUBMITTED BY THE EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ASST. ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 22.3.2016 FOR ASST. YEAR 2013-14 PASSED BY EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ASST. ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 21.12.2016 FOR ASST. YEAR 2014-15 PASSED BY EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ASST. ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 27.11.2017 FOR ASST. YEAR 2015-16 PASSED BY EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 23.4.2016 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2013-14 SUBMITTED BY EXHIBIT P7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 23.4.2016 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2013-14 SUBMITTED BY THE EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 23.1.2017 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2014-15 SUBMITTED BY EXHIBIT P8(A) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 23.1.2017 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2014-15 SUBMITTED BY THE EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 4.1.2018 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2015-16 SUBMITTED BY EXHIBIT P9(A) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 4.1.2018 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2015-16 SUBMITTED BY THE

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED U/S.220(6) OF THE ACT DATED 25.4.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER 2010-11. EXHIBIT P10(A) TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED U/S.220(6) OF THE ACT DATED 25.4.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER 2013-14. EXHIBIT P10(B) TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED U/S.220(6) OF THE ACT DATED 23.1.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER 2014-15. EXHIBIT P10(C) TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED U/S.220(6) OF THE ACT DATED 4.1.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER 2015-16. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- PA TO JUDGE rsr

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.9616 of 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of March, 2018 J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act (the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. Aggrieved by Exts.P2, P4, P5 and P6 assessment orders, the petitioner preferred Exts.P3, P7, P8 and P9 appeals before the second respondent. Exts.P3(a), P7(a), P8(a) and P9(a) are the applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in Exts.P3, P7, P8 and P9 appeals. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the second respondent in passing orders on Exts.P3(a), P7(a), P8(a) and P9(a) applications for stay. It is alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition that proceedings have already been initiated for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P2, P4, P5 and P6 orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition.

W.P.(c).No.10187 of 2018 : 2 : 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to take a decision on Exts.P3(a), P7(a), P8(a) and P9(a) applications for stay, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say that until orders are passed on Exts.P3(a), P7(a), P8(a) and P9(a) applications for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P2, P4, P5 and P6 assessment orders shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE rsr

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 →