By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menonsmt.k.krishna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA,1941 WP(C).No.32394 OF 2019(Y) PETITIONER : THE KANJIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F1199, KANJIIKODE.P.O., KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD-678621, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GURU RAJALINGAM BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENONSMT.MEERA V.MENONSMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS : 1THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 AND TPS, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD - 678 014 2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS),SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR - 680 021 BY SC, JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FORADMISSION ON 29.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING : JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, thepetitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal together with Ext.P3 stay petitionbefore the 2[nd] respondent. The 2[nd] respondent by Ext.P4 order passed aconditional order of stay in the stay application directing the petitioner todeposit 20% of the disputed amount as a condition for grant of stay ofrecovery of the balance amount pending disposal of the appeal. It issubmitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue involved inthe appeal is the deduction allowable under Section 80P of the Income TaxAct, and in similar cases, this Court has directed the Appellate Authority toconsider and pass orders in the appeal without insisting on the deposit of anydisputed amount as a condition for grant of stay of recovery of the assessedamount pending disposal of the appeal. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner andalso the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as alsothe submissions made across the Bar and taking note of the fact that insimilar matters, this Court has directed the Appellate Authority to considerand pass orders in the appeal and stayed the recovery of disputed amountspending disposal of the appeal, this Writ petition is disposed by quashing Ext.P4 conditional order, and directing the 2[nd] respondent to consider andpass orders on Ext.P2 appeal within an outer time limit of six months from thedate of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. It ismade clear that recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against thepetitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance till such timeas orders are passed by the 2[nd] respondent as directed above andcommunicated to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of thewrit petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the 2[nd] respondent,for further action. Sd/-A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE RKM PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: APPENDIX EXHIBIT P1COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-171ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 EXHIBIT P2COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 EXHIBIT P3COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FORTHE YEAR 2016-17PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FORTHE YEAR 2016-17 EXHIBIT P4COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENTRESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WA NO.1649/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURTTHIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P6COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NOS.21015 AND 20995/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT20995/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P6 ACOPY OF JUDGMENT WP(C)NO.22496/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURTTHIS HON'BLE COURT