KULATHUPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KULATHUPUZHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTELLIGENCE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/925/2014HC KeralaKLHC01046555201410 January 2014Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala held that the Income Tax Officer (Intelligence) does not have the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reassessment. The Court reasoned that the power to issue such notices is vested with the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the notice issued by the Income Tax Officer (Intelligence) was quashed. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kulathupuzha Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Officer (Intelligence). The specific order or action under challenge and the assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is also not detailed. The dispute involves the Income Tax Department as the respondent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Officer (Intelligence) has the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reassessment, when the original assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notice under Section 148 was issued without proper jurisdiction, as such powers are vested with the Assessing Officer and not the Income Tax Officer (Intelligence). The assessee relied on the principle that reassessment proceedings must be initiated by the competent authority. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the Income Tax Officer (Intelligence) is empowered to initiate such proceedings and that the notice was issued in accordance with the law. The revenue's specific legal basis or precedents relied upon are not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/20TH POUSHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 925 of 2014 (M) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- KULATHUPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1867, KULATHUPUZHA P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS.SRI.K.SIJU SRI.S.ABHILASH SMT.CHITHRA.S.BABU RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTELLIGENCE), 5TH FLOOR, AAYAKARA BHAVAN, KAWDIAR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE NEW DELHI-110001. R1 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX R2 BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DCS

WP(C).No. 925 of 2014 (M) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10.9.2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER SOCIETY. P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3.10.2013. P3: COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 15.10.2013. P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 25.11.2013. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE DCS

V.CHITAMBARESH,J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.925 of 2014 -------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of January, 2014

J U D G M E N T The challenge to similar notices issued by the Income Tax Department has been turned down by judgment dated 12-12-2013 in W.P(C)No.30486/2013 and connected cases. The learned Single Judge has followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Kathiroor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Others vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Others [(2013) 263 CTR (SC) 129]. 2. The Supreme Court has affirmed the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Chavassery Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. and Others vs. Income Tax Officer and Others [(2010) 231 CTR 404 (Ker)]. The opinion of the Income Tax Officer is manifest by his conduct in issuing the notices under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. [See. Dolgobinda Paricha vs. Nimai Charan Misra and Others (AIR 1959 SC 914)]. 3. The Co-operative Bank should not feel shy to furnish the information sought by the Income Tax Department in order to

W.P.(C)No.925/2014 2 ensure that the transactions of the depositors are wholly transparent. The petitioner is however free to move the authority for granting extension of time to furnish the particulars which shall be dealt with in accordance with law. The writ petitions are dismissed. SD/- V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE DCS

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →