M/S THIRUMITTACODE SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/8472/2018HC KeralaKLHC01040062201813 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to decide on the stay applications within two months from the date of receipt of the judgment. The Court further ordered that until orders are passed on the stay applications, further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment orders shall be deferred. The reasoning for this decision is to address the petitioner's grievance of undue delay and the commencement of recovery proceedings, ensuring that the petitioner's right to seek a stay is not prejudiced by administrative delays. The principle is that appellate authorities should decide stay applications expeditiously, and recovery should be deferred pending such decisions.

What were the facts?

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

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in passing orders on the stay applications by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is justified, and what directions are necessary to expedite the process? The petitioner's contention is that the second respondent has unduly delayed passing orders on the stay applications filed along with the appeals against the assessment orders. This delay is causing prejudice as recovery proceedings have commenced. The petitioner seeks directions for a speedy disposal of the stay applications. The revenue has not recorded any specific arguments in this regard, but their counsel appeared and was heard.

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 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 8472 of 2018 PETITIONER :

M/S THIRUMITTACODE SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD., CHATHANNUR POST, PERINGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 537. - REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SHRI.MANIKANDAN K.K. BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS : 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DSV/-

WP(C).No. 8472 of 2018 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 06.04.1964 ISSUED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. EXHIBIT-P2 28.03.2016 FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2013-14 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P3 20.12.2016 FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2014-15 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P4 28.11.2017 FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2015-16 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 23.04.2016 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2013-14 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND EXHIBIT-P5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 23.04.2016 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2013-14 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 23.01.2017 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2014-15 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND

EXHIBIT-P6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 23.01.2017 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2014-15 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 04.01.2018 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2015-16 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND EXHIBIT-P7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 04.01.2018 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2015-16 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P8 DATED 25.04.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2013-14. EXHIBIT-P8(A) DATED 23.01.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2014-15. EXHIBIT-P8(B) DATED 04.01.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2015-16. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // DSV/- P.A.TO JUDGE

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ================== W.P.(C.) No.8472 of 2018 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of March, 2018 JUDGMENT

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

W.P.(C.) No. 8472/2018

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to take a decision on the 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 the applications for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P2 to P4 assessment orders shall be deferred.

Sd/- P.B. SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE sd

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 →