THE KANHIKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/6862/2018HC KeralaKLHC01038452201801 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 the stay application (Ext.P3) within two months from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment. This decision is to be made without being influenced by any orders passed by competent authorities under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act. Furthermore, the Court ordered that until a decision is passed on the stay application, further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment orders (Ext.P1 series) shall be deferred. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment orders or the stay application itself, but rather focused on procedural expediency.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Kanhikulam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. They are aggrieved by assessment orders for the year 2013-14, issued by the first respondent, the Income Tax Officer. The petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and also an application for stay of demand. The present writ petition was filed due to the delay by the second respondent in passing an order on the stay application. The petitioner also stated that recovery proceedings had already been initiated for the amounts demanded in the assessment orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should issue directions to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to expedite the decision on the stay application filed by the assessee, considering the delay and initiation of recovery proceedings. The petitioner argued that the delay in deciding the stay application is causing prejudice, especially since recovery proceedings have commenced. They sought directions for a timely decision. The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, did not present any specific arguments against the petitioner's plea for expediting the stay application decision. The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the merits of the stay application or the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 220(6)

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 THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 6862 of 2018 PETITIONER: THE KANHIKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KANHIKULAM P.O., PALAKKAD-678 596, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.SASIDHARAN. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD NO.1, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR-680 001. R1 & R2 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts 1/3/2018 WP(C).No. 6862 of 2018 (G) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14, DATED 24/03/2016 EXHIBIT P1(a) COPY OF RECTIFIED ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 02/05/2017 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 01/06/2017 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 08/04/2016 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 07/06/2016. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE sts 1/3/2018 P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6862 of 2018 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st 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 Ext.P1 series assessment orders, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the second respondent. Ext.P3 is the application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2 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 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.P1 series 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.

WPC 6862/18 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 application for stay, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. This shall be done untrammelled by the orders, if any, passed by the competent authorities under the Act in exercise of their powers under sub-section (6) of Section 220 of the Act. Needless to say that until orders are passed on Ext.P3 application for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 series assessment orders shall be deferred. P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE vps 1/3 // PS to Judge

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 →