THE POLPULLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.F.1198 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTELLIGENCE)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/24TH MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 4329 of 2014 (M) --------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------- THE POLPULLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.F.1198 PO POLPULLY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY C.GOPINATHAN, SECRETARY BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: ------------ 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTELLIGENCE) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR THRISSUR 680 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INTELLIGENCE) CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, IS PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM KOCHI 682 018 R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V.K. RAFEEQU BY ADV. SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC, IT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 4329 of 2014 (M) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF LETTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL ----------------------- TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE SCL.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ======================== W.P.(C). No. 4329 of 2014 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of February, 2014 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, who is before this Court, challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P1 notice issued by the 1st respondent under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Various grounds have been raised with regard to the correctness and sustainability of the said proceedings. However, it is conceded that, the issue is answered against the petitioner by this Court and the position has been affirmed by the Apex Court on dismissal of the SLPs preferred in this regard by similarly aggrieved parties. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner has sought for an alternative relief, as borne by prayer No.2, for granting further time to trace out all the particulars and to have the same furnished. Since, the time granted as per Ext.P1 notice was only up to 07.02.2014, the petitioner has already approached the 1st respondent by filing Ext.P2 request for granting some more time as above.

W.P.C. No. 4399 of 2014 -2- 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the matter could be disposed of, by causing Ext.P2 to be considered by the 1st respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the particulars sought for by the 1st respondent are in respect of a period of three years and all the relevant records will have to be verified to submit the correct facts and figures and to have full compliance with the requirement in Ext.P1 notice. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the financial year is coming to an end by 31.03.2014 and as such, the petitioner has to attend to other day-to-day requirements as well, so as to safeguard the interest of the members/general public, who are dealing with the Bank. 5. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds it fit and proper to grant one month’s time to the petitioner, so as to satisfy the requirement in Ext.P1. Subject to this, the writ petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. kp/-