M/S. CHALISSERY SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent) to decide the stay applications (Exts.P3(a), P6(a), and P7(a)) within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court further ordered that until orders are passed on these stay applications, further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment orders (Exts.P2, P4, and P5) shall be deferred. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeals or the assessment orders themselves, focusing solely on the procedural delay in deciding the stay petitions.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, M/s. Chalissery 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 (1st respondent). The petitioner filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent) and also filed stay petitions along with the appeals. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the 2nd respondent in passing orders on these stay petitions. The petitioner also states that recovery proceedings have been initiated for the amounts demanded in the assessment orders.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition concerning the delay in passing stay orders by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) when statutory appeals and stay applications are pending. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argues that the delay in deciding the stay petitions is causing prejudice, especially since recovery proceedings have commenced. They seek directions 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 maintainability of the writ petition. The revenue was represented by its Standing Counsel.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
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. 8506 of 2018 ============ PETITIONER M/S. CHALISSERY SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD., CHALISSERY POST,PALAKKAD DISTRICT,PIN-679536, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,SHRI.GANGADHARAN.T. BY ADVS.SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN RESPONDENTS 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3,PALAKKAD-678001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAWAN,SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680001. 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:
WP(C).No. 8506 of 2018 (K) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 20.2.2017 ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL),PALAKKAD EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASST.ORDER DATED 21.3.2016 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2013-14 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 23.04.2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2013-14 EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 23.04.2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2013-14 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ASST.ORDER DATED 21.12.2016 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2014-15 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ASST.ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE FOR THE ASST.YEAR DATED 20.11.2017 FOR AY-2015-16 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 23.01.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2014-15 EXHIBIT P6(A) TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 23.01.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2014-15. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 4.1.2018 FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2015-16 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 4.1.2018 FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2015-16 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED U/S.220(6)OF THE ACT DATED 25.4.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER 2013-14 EXHIBIT P8(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED U/S.220(6)OF THE ACT DATED 23.1.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER 2014-15
WP(C).No. 8506 of 2018 (K)
EXHIBIT P8(B) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED U/S.220(6)OF THE ACT DATED 4.1.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER 2015-16. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE SD
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ================== W.P.(C.) No.8506 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, P4 and P5 assessment orders, the petitioner preferred Exts.P3, P6 and P7 appeals before the second respondent. Exts.P3(a), P6(a) and P7(a) are the applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in Exts.P3, P6 and P7 appeals. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the second respondent in passing orders on Ext.P3(a), P6(a) and P7(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 and P5 assessment orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this
W.P.(C.) No. 8506/2018
regard, in this writ petition. 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), P6(a) and P7(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), P6(a) and P7(a) applications for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P2, P4 and P5 assessment orders shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B. SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE sd
More judgments on Section 220(6)
- Ramji Vaish, Allahabad vs ACIT, AllahabadITA 371/ALLD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed9 Jun 2026AY 2011-12
- Vijay Stone Product, Sonebhadra vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…ITA 4/ALLD/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2026AY 2011-12
- Susi Charitable Trust, Khurda vs The Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption)…ITA 582/CTK/2025[2026-27]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2026-27
- Jayant Security and Finance Ltd, Indore vs ACIT Central-2, BhopalITA 91/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
- Jayant Security and Finance Ltd, Indore vs ACIT Central-2, BhopalITA 90/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2025AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Paramount Tea Marketing PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 OrsGauhati · 4 Nov 2026
- Md. Junaid vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S Sanjeevini Health Care vs. M/S.Vijayalakshmi And AssociatesKarnataka · 4 Nov 2026
- Trilok Chandra vs. State Tax OfficerUttarakhand · 4 Nov 2026
- Basant Ballabh Punetha vs. State Of UttarakhandUttarakhand · 4 Nov 2026