By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menon

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. 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 RESPONDENTEXHIBIT P2 COPY OF LETTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ISTRESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL ----------------------- SCL. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ======================== -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13[th] 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 andsustainability of Ext.P1 notice issued by the 1[st] respondent underSection 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Various groundshave been raised with regard to the correctness and sustainabilityof the said proceedings. However, it is conceded that, the issue isanswered against the petitioner by this Court and the positionhas been affirmed by the Apex Court on dismissal of the SLPspreferred 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 analternative relief, as borne by prayer No.2, for granting furthertime to trace out all the particulars and to have the samefurnished. Since, the time granted as per Ext.P1 notice was onlyup to 07.02.2014, the petitioner has already approached the 1[st]respondent by filing Ext.P2 request for granting some more timeas above. W.P.C. No. 4399 of 2014 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for therespondents submits that the matter could be disposed of, bycausing Ext.P2 to be considered by the 1[st] respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that theparticulars sought for by the 1[st] respondent are in respect of aperiod of three years and all the relevant records will have to beverified to submit the correct facts and figures and to have fullcompliance with the requirement in Ext.P1 notice. It is alsobrought to the notice of this Court that the financial year iscoming to an end by 31.03.2014 and as such, the petitioner hasto attend to other day-to-day requirements as well, so as tosafeguard the interest of the members/general public, who aredealing with the Bank. 5. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds it fit andproper to grant one month’s time to the petitioner, so as tosatisfy the requirement in Ext.P1. Subject to this, the writ petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.