THE KASARAGOD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court, considering the facts and circumstances, and particularly noting that an amount of Rs. 27,08,245/- had already been adjusted by the respondent against the liability for the assessment year 2012-13, disposed of the writ petition. The Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass orders on the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. The Court also ordered that recovery steps pursuant to the notice dated March 12, 2015, shall be kept in abeyance until the appellate authority passes and communicates its order. The specific issue of whether further deposit of tax was mandatory for a stay was implicitly addressed by directing the appellate authority to consider the appeal without such insistence, given the prior adjustment.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Kasaragod District Co-operative Bank Ltd., is challenging an assessment order dated February 5, 2015, for Assessment Year 2012-2013, which raised a demand of Rs. 54,03,750/-. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The respondents, in relation to this demand, adjusted an amount of Rs. 27,08,245/- which was due to the petitioner as a refund for Assessment Year 2009-2010, as per an order dated March 2, 2015. This adjustment reduced the outstanding liability for Assessment Year 2012-2013 to Rs. 26,95,500/-. The petitioner sought a direction to the appellate authority to consider their appeal without insisting on further deposit of tax as a condition for stay.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) should direct the appellate authority to consider and pass orders on the appeal without insisting on further deposit of tax, given that a substantial amount of refund due to the assessee has already been adjusted against the demand for the current assessment year? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that since Rs. 27,08,245/- has already been adjusted by the respondents towards the liability for Assessment Year 2012-13, the appellate authority should be directed to consider and pass orders on the appeal without demanding any further deposit as a condition for granting a stay pending disposal of the appeal. The petitioner relied on the fact that this adjustment has significantly reduced their outstanding liability. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/3RD CHAITHRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 9237 of 2015 (D) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- THE KASARAGOD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., PB NO.48, NAYAKS ROAD, KASARAGOD, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, ANIL KUMAR, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.AIYYAPPAN PILLAI.
BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOZHIKODE. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, KANNUR RANGE, KANNUR.
BY ADV. SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs.
WP(C).No. 9237 of 2015 (D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 05/02/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/03/2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 02/03/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010. EXT.P7 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/03/2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. =========================================== W.P.(C). No. 9237 of 2015 ===================================================== Dated this the 24th day of March, 2015 JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order passed under the Income Tax Act, for the assessment year 2012-2013, the petitioner preferred Ext.P4 appeal before the 1st respondent appellate authority. It is pointed out that pursuant to a demand of Rs.54,03,750/- that was raised on the petitioner, consequent to the assessment order, the respondents have already adjusted an amount of Rs.27,08,245/-, which was due to the petitioner by way of refund, as discernible from Ext.P6 order. The adjustment effected by the respondents resulted in the outstanding liability of the petitioner for the assessment year 2012-13 being reduced to Rs.26,95,500/-. It is the case of the petitioner that, inasmuch as the said amount of Rs.27,08,245/- has been adjusted by the respondents towards the liability for the assessment year 2012-13, a direction may be issued to the appellate authority to consider and pass orders in the appeal itself, without insisting on any further deposit of tax as a condition for the grant of stay pending disposal of the appeal. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
-2- W.P.(C). No. 9237 of 2015 respondents. 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, and in particular, taking note of the fact that an amount of Rs.27,08,245/- has already been adjusted by the 1st respondent against the liability for the assessment year 2012-13, I dispose the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 appeal filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. The recovery steps pursuant to Ext.P7 notice shall be kept in abeyance till such time as the 1st respondent passes orders, as directed, and communicates the same to the petitioner. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE das
More judgments on Section 156
- Jay Patel, Raipur vs ITO, Ward-3(1), RaipurITA 684/RPR/2026[2015-16]Status: Heard12 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Sagarmal Mall, Kolkata vs D.C.I.T., Circle - 32, KolkataITA 195/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
- Bhavesh Rameshbhai Patel, Naroda vs Asst. Unit. Income Tax Dept. (Present Juri…ITA 321/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Prabha Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 5(1), KolkataITA 2543/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2013-2014
- Maheshwari Brothers, Mumbai vs ITO - 19(2)(2), MumbaiITA 4115/MUM/2026[2008-09]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2008-09
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Priyanshi Enterprises vs. Principal Commissioner Of CGST Delhi North And Ors.Delhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Subrat Kumar Samal vs. The Commissioner, CGST, Cx And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Laxmipriya Biswal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax,BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Shree Jagannath Engineering,Angul vs. Assistant Commissioner, Angul Division ,AngulOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Archana Agro, Nayagarh vs. The Chief Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, CuttackOrissa · 3 Nov 2026