THE PUDUPPARIYARAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. F-1509 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/5752/2018HC KeralaKLHC01037342201821 February 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the second respondent (CIT(A)) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's application for condonation of delay (Exhibit P3) in filing the appeal (Exhibit P2). This decision was to be made within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court further directed that if the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, the CIT(A) should also pass orders on the stay application (Exhibit P4) within the same two-month period. Crucially, the Court ordered that until orders are passed on the stay petition or the delay petition, further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment order (Exhibit P1) shall be deferred. The principle established is that procedural delays in appellate processes can be addressed by the High Court through writ petitions, ensuring timely adjudication and preventing undue hardship to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Puduppariyaram Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The Income Tax Officer (ITO), the first respondent, revised the petitioner's self-assessment for the assessment year 2010-11 through an order dated Exhibit P1, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal (Exhibit P2) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), the second respondent. However, there was a delay of 27 days in filing the appeal, for which the petitioner submitted an application for condonation of delay (Exhibit P3). The petitioner also filed an application for stay (Exhibit P4) pending the appeal. The present writ petition was filed due to the delay by the appellate authority in considering these applications.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition concerning the delay in the appellate authority considering an application for condonation of delay and a stay petition, when the primary grievance is procedural delay rather than a substantive legal error in the assessment order? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the scope of writ jurisdiction and administrative efficiency). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay in the appellate authority considering their applications for condonation of delay and stay was causing prejudice and hindering the appeal process. They sought intervention from the High Court to direct the appellate authority to expedite the decision on these applications. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by its Standing Counsel, appeared before the court. No specific arguments for the revenue were recorded in the judgment regarding the merits of the delay or stay applications, or the maintainability of the writ petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

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 WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 5752 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) THE PUDUPPARIYARAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. F-1509 PUDUPPARIYARAM P.O, PALAKKAD - 678 731, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VANAJA T.K. 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.2, PALAKKAD - 678 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR - 680 001. R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 5752 of 2018 (T) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. // true copy // PS TO JUDGE Kvs/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.5752 of 2018 = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st 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. The self assessment made by the petitioner under the Act has been revised as per Ext.P1 order in terms of Section 143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal. There was a delay of 27 days in filing the appeal. The petitioner, therefore, preferred Ext.P3 application for condonation of the said delay. The petitioner preferred Ext.P4 application for stay also in Ext.P2 appeal. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the appellate authority in considering the application for condonation of delay as also the application for stay. 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

WPC.No.5752 of 2018

case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 application preferred by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing Ext.P2 appeal. Ordered accordingly. This shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that if the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, orders shall also be passed on Ext.P4 application for stay within the aforesaid time limit. Needless also to say that until orders are passed on the application for stay or the delay petition, as the case may be, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 order shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. Kvs/- // true copy //

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →