NANNIYODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/6217/2018HC KeralaKLHC01037807201806 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has the power to condone the delay in filing an appeal, provided sufficient cause is shown. The Court observed that the petitioner had filed an application for condonation of delay along with the appeal. The Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider the application for condonation of delay and, if the delay is condoned, to proceed to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits. The principle established is that appellate authorities should consider applications for condonation of delay on their merits, and if the delay is condoned, the appeal should be heard. The operative direction is for the Commissioner to decide the condonation application and then the appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Nanniyode Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 2(3), Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner is represented by its Secretary. The respondents include the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), the ITO, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and another Income Tax Officer. The writ petition was filed on March 6, 2018. The judgment does not specify the assessment year(s) or the amount in dispute. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is not detailed in the provided text.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction to the respondents to consider and pass orders on its application for condonation of delay and appeal, despite the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was for valid reasons and that the Commissioner ought to have considered the application for condonation of delay. The assessee sought a direction for the Commissioner to consider the appeal on merits after condoning the delay. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, did not record any specific arguments against the maintainability of the writ petition or the assessee's claim for condonation of delay. The judgment does not record any arguments made by the revenue.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 6217 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) NANNIYODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD 1161, NANNIYODE, PACHA PO, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695562 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P LATHAKUMARI. BY ADVS.DR.K.P.PRADEEP SRI.SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.T.THASMI RESPONDENT(S): 1. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 110001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKKAR BHAVAN, KOWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695004 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, PRESS CLUB ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN.695001 4. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(I/C), JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 2, 1ST FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN.695004 BY SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, STANDING COUNSEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 6217 of 2018 (B) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.AABAN1911B DATED 15.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 10.2.2018 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 AGAINST EXT.P2 ASSESSMENT ORDER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN F NO.AABAN1911B DATED 15.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION DATED 10.2.2018 IN EXT.P3 APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.F NO.AABAT9742J/ITO.W 2(3)/TVM/2017-18 DATED 9.2.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. (true copy) Sd/- P.S. to Judge P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6217 of 2018 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 6th 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 second respondent. Aggrieved by Ext.P2 assessment order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 appeal before the third respondent. Ext.P5 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 third respondent in passing orders on Ext.P5 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.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

WPC No. 6217/18 2 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the third respondent to take a decision on Ext.P5 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.P5 application for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P2 assessment order shall be deferred. P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. tgs

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →