MANAMBOOR SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 6208 of 2018 PETITIONER MANAMBOOR SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.2825 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SHRI.V.B.PRAKASH BABU, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN AGED 55 YEARS, MAMBOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM DISTRICT PIN - 695605. BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2) KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM - 695003 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOEM TAX (APPEALS), TRIVANDRUM - 695003. BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 6208 of 2018 (A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE IN THIS REGARD ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 12/10/2015. EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29/11/2017 ISSUED BY THE R1. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 29/11/2017 ISSUED BY THE R1 EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF THE E-FILED APPEAL FOR AY 2015-16 DATED 12/12/2017 FILED BEFORE THER2. EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF THE STAY PETITIONF OR AY 2015-16 DATED 10/2/2018 BEFORE THE R2. EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 12/2/2018 BY THE R1. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// Sd/- PA TO JUDGE rsr

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.6208 of 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of February, 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.P4 appeal before the second respondent. Ext.P5 is the application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P4 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.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.

W.P.(c).No.6208 of 2018 : 2 : 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.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. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE rsr