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

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/6844/2018HC KeralaKLHC01038434201801 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, having heard both parties, deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by issuing a direction to the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)). The Tribunal directed the second respondent to take a decision on the petitioner's stay application (Exhibit P3) within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that until orders are passed on the stay application, further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment order (Exhibit P1) shall be deferred. The judgment does not explicitly mention any issue left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Moongilmada Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. They received an assessment order (Exhibit P1) for the assessment year 2011-12 from the Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 5, Palakkad (the first respondent). Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal (Exhibit P2) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thrissur (the second respondent). Along with the appeal, the petitioner also filed an application for stay (Exhibit P3) of the demand arising from the assessment order. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the second respondent in passing an order on the stay application. 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 issue directions for the expeditious disposal of a stay application filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) when proceedings for recovery of tax are underway. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that there has been a delay on the part of the second respondent in passing orders on their stay application (Exhibit P3). They also stated that recovery proceedings have commenced, causing them prejudice. They sought appropriate directions from the High Court to address this delay. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents was heard, but it does not explicitly detail their arguments. However, by appearing and being heard, it can be inferred they were present to respond to the petitioner's plea.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

None explicitly mentioned in the provided text.

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. 6844 of 2018 PETITIONER: THE MOONGILMADA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., DOOR NO.292/8, MOONGILMADA, VANNAMADA POST, PALAKKAD-678 555, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE, V.DEVAKI. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD NO.5, 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. 6844 of 2018 (E) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12, DATED 19/12/2016 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 01/02/2017 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 08/02/2017 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE sts 1/3/2018 P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6844 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 assessment order, 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 assessment 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. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition

WPC 6844/18 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. 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 assessment order shall be deferred. P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE vps 1/3 // PS to Judge

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →