THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/8/2017HC KeralaKLHC01026084201709 March 2017Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its judgment dated March 9, 2017, dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The court's decision was based on a prior ruling by the same High Court in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2016) 384 ITR 490 (Ker). The court found that the issue involved in the present appeal was covered by this earlier decision, which was against the appellant (Revenue). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without delving into the specific merits of the case, as it was deemed to be concluded by precedent. No specific amount in dispute is mentioned.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal by the Revenue against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, dated August 18, 2016, in ITA No. 145/Coch/2016. The ITAT's order was in favor of the assessee, M/s. Thiruvananthapuram Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The assessment year in question is 2011-2012. The Assessing Officer had passed an order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated February 26, 2014. This was followed by an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thiruvananthapuram, dated December 30, 2015, which also did not provide relief to the Revenue. The present appeal challenges the ITAT's decision.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court of Kerala was whether the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the ITAT should be admitted. The Revenue contended that the ITAT had erred in its decision. The assessee, M/s. Thiruvananthapuram Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., presumably argued in support of the ITAT's order. The judgment does not explicitly frame the issue as a question of law or detail the specific arguments made by each side beyond the general statement that the Revenue is appealing the ITAT's order. However, the court's decision hinges on a previous ruling by the same High Court.

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 ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/18TH PHALGUNA, 1938 ITA.No. 8 of 2017 () --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 145/COCH/2016 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 18-08-2016 APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE : -------------------------------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

BY ADVS.SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEP SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: ----------------------------------------------------------- M/S.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. PRESS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITA.No. 8 of 2017 () APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 26.02.2014. ANNEXURE B : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 30.12.2015. ANNEXURE C : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN ITA NO.145/COCH/2016 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2011-2012 DATED 18.08.2016. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. rv

ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. ------------------------------------------- Income Tax Appeal No. 8 of 2017 ( ) ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of March, 2017. JUDGMENT Antony Dominic,J. In the light of the decision of this Court in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax1, the issue involved in this case is covered against the appellant. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE. Rv 1 (2016) 384 ITR 490 (Ker)

W.P.(Crl.) No. -2-

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →