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

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/8411/2018HC KeralaKLHC01040001201813 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, considering the facts and circumstances, deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to decide the stay application (Ext.P3(a)) within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also directed that until orders are passed on the stay application, further proceedings for realization of the amounts covered by the assessment order (Ext.P2) shall be deferred. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of undue delay in deciding stay applications by appellate authorities, the High Court can intervene to ensure timely disposal and protect the assessee from premature recovery actions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Katampazhipuram Service Co-op. Bank Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. They were aggrieved by an assessment order dated December 21, 2016, for Assessment Year 2014-15, passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Palakkad (the first respondent). The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (the second respondent) on January 24, 2017. Along with the appeal, they also filed a stay petition. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the second respondent in passing an order on the stay petition. Proceedings for realization of the amounts demanded in the assessment order had already been initiated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition concerning the delay in passing an order on a stay application filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay in deciding the stay petition by the second respondent is causing prejudice, especially since recovery proceedings have commenced. They sought appropriate directions from the High Court. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue. However, 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 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 8411 of 2018 PETITIONER M/S. KATAMPAZHIPURAM SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD., KATAMPAZHIPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678633, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SHRI. SUBRAMANIAN P. BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN 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. 8411 of 2018 (B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 13.1.2017 ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), PALAKKAD. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ASST. ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 21.12.2016 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2014-15 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 24.1.2017 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2014-15 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 24.1.2017 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2014-15 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED U/S. 220(6) OF THE ACT DATED 23.1.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2014-15. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- PA TO JUDGE rsr

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.8411 of 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th 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 Ext.P2 assessment order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 appeal before the second respondent. Ext.P3(a) is the application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P3 appeal. 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) application 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 Ext.P2 order. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition.

W.P.(c).No.8411 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 Ext.P3(a) application 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 Ext.P3(a) application for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P2 assessment order 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 →