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

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/7981/2018HC KeralaKLHC01039571201809 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the stay applications (Exhibits P5(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 (Exhibits P2 to P4) shall be deferred. The judgment does not decide the merits of the appeals or the validity of the assessment orders themselves, focusing solely on the procedural delay and the need for a stay order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Koppam 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) along with stay applications. The petitioner's grievance is the delay by the 2nd respondent in passing orders on these stay applications, while proceedings for realization of the amounts demanded in the assessment orders have already been initiated. The petitioner seeks appropriate directions from the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should issue directions to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to expedite the decision on stay applications filed by the assessee, considering the delay in passing orders and initiation of recovery proceedings? (Question of procedure and administrative efficiency). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argues that the delay in deciding the stay applications, coupled with the initiation of recovery proceedings, is causing prejudice. They seek a direction for a timely decision on their appeals and stay petitions. Revenue's Contentions: No specific contentions were recorded for the revenue in the judgment.

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 FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 7981 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) M/S. KOPPAM SERVICE CO-OP . BANK LTD. PULASSERY POST, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN: 679 307 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SHRI.HARINARAYANAN V.P BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): 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. R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 7981 of 2018 (W) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 7/6/2012 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), OTTAPALAM EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ASST. ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 23/3/2016 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2013-14 PASSED EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ASST. ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 21/12/2016 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2014-15 PASSED EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ASST. ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 28/11/2017 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2015-16 PASSED EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 23/4/2016 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2013-14 SUBMITTED BY EXHIBIT P5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 23/4/2016 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2013-14 SUBMITTED BY THE EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 23/1/2017 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2014-15 SUBMITTED BY EXHIBIT P6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 23/1/2017 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2014-15 SUBMITTED BY THE EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 4/1/2018 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2015-16 SUBMITTED BY EXHIBIT P7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 4/1/2018 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2015-16 SUBMITTED BY THE EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF 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 PETITION FILED U/S.220(6) OF THE ACT DATED 23/1/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER 2014-15 EXHIBIT P8(B) 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/- P.A. TO JUDGE SKS

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.7981 of 2018 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th 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 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 Exts.P5(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 to P4 assessment orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this 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

W.P. (c) No.7981/2018

case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to take a decision on Exts.P5(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.P5(a), P6(a) and P7(a) 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. SKS

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 →