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

WP(C)/5593/2018HC KeralaKLHC01037183201820 February 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, considering the facts and circumstances, deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass orders on the stay petitions (Ext.P3 series) within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court further directed that, until orders are passed on the stay petitions, further proceedings for the realization of amounts covered by the assessment orders (Ext.P1 series) shall be deferred. The judgment did not decide the merits of the appeals themselves, focusing solely on expediting the decision on the stay applications.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Mundur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The Income Tax Officer (ITO), the first respondent, revised the self-assessments of the petitioner for assessment years 2010-11, 2013-14, and 2015-16 through orders dated March 24, 2016, July 3, 2017, and December 26, 2017, respectively. The petitioner filed appeals against these orders before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), the second respondent, along with stay petitions. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is the delay by the CIT(A) in disposing of these appeals and stay petitions. The petitioner also states that steps are being taken to recover the amounts demanded by the ITO.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in disposing of the appeals and stay petitions by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is unreasonable, warranting intervention by the High Court. (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning procedural fairness and timely adjudication under the Income Tax Act). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that there is a significant delay on the part of the second respondent (CIT(A)) in disposing of the appeals and stay petitions filed against the assessment orders. This delay is causing prejudice as recovery proceedings have commenced. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents was heard, but does not detail specific arguments made by the revenue regarding the delay or the merits of the appeals.

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 TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 5593 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) THE MUNDUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., MUNDUR P.O., PALAKKAD-278592, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, JIJIMON A.J. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD NO.2, PALAKKAD-678001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR-680001. R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 5593 of 2018 (Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST

RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 24.03.2016. EXHIBIT P1(a) COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2013-14

ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 03.07.2017. EXHIBIT P1(b) COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2015-16

ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26.12.2017. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE

THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.04.2016. EXHIBIT P2(a) COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE

THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.04.2016. EXHIBIT P2(b) COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE

THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09.01.2018. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER

BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.04.2016. EXHIBIT P3(a) COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER

BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.04.2016. EXHIBIT P3(b) COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER

BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ VPS PS TO JUDGE

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.5593 of 2018 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February, 2018

JUDGMENT Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act (the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. The self assessments made by the petitioner for the years 2010-’11, 2013-’14 and 2015-’16 have been revised by the first respondent in terms of Section 143(3) of the Act as per Ext.P1 series orders. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 series orders, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 series appeals before the second respondent and the same are pending. Ext.P3 series are the applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2 series appeals. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the second respondent in disposing of Ext.P2 series appeals. It is alleged that steps have already been taken for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 series orders from the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

WPC 5593/18 -:2:- 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 directing the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 series applications for stay. Ordered accordingly. This shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that till orders are passed on Exts.P3 series applications for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 series of orders shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE vps 20/2 /True Copy/ PS to Judge

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →