Dated This The 25Th Day Of May 2020 v. Commissionerof Income Tax 2019 (2) Khc 287, Wherein For Considering The

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1942 WP(C).No.10227 OF 2020(C) PETITIONER/S: THE ARANATTUKARA ORIENTAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.171ARANATTUKARA, THRISSUR-680 618, REPRESENTEDBY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT/S: 1THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)AAYAKAR BHAVAN, S.T. NAGAR, THRISSUR. 2THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHAKTHANTHAMPURAN NAGAR,THRISSUR-680 001 OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON25.05.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Dated this the 25th day of May 2020 Petitioner is a primary Co-operative Agricultural Credit Societyregistered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Petitioneris an assesee on the file of the 2[nd] respondent. While so, the 2[nd]respondent issued a notice under Section 156 of the Income taxAct pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. 2.Aggrieved by the assessment order petitioner preferredappeal before the 1[st] respondent along with a stay application. Itis submitted that neither the appeal nor stay petition has beenconsidered by the respondents. Apprehending coercive action,petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition. Inthis regard he relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench ofthis Court in writ appeal No.1536/19 dated 1.7.2019 arising out ofjudgment dated 31.5.2019 W.P.(C)12843/19. The Division Benchafter noticing the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in ITANo.97/16 and connected cases, decided on 19.3.2019 titled asMavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissionerof Income Tax 2019 (2) KHC 287, wherein for considering the appeal the demand of 20% as a condition precedent has beennegated. 4.Issue notice before admission. Sri.Jose Joseph acceptsnotice on behalf of the income tax authorities. He submits thatthe order is in consonance with the provisions of Section 144 ofthe Income Tax Act and the Circular dated 31.7.2017 mandatingthe appellate authorities to ask for deposit 20% of the amount forthe purpose of entertaining the adjudication of the appeal. 5.Having heard learned Counsel for the parties andappraised the paper book, I am of the view that the argument ofthe petitioner is in consonance with findings rendered in thejudgment referred to above and reiterated by the Division Bench.The assessing officer or the appellate authority while exercisingthe power of appeal or stay of the assessment proceedings undersection 226 of the Income Act 1961 are enjoined obligation togive regard and respect to the directions of the Hon'ble HighCourt. In other words, it would not be necessary that the paymentof 20% can be dispensed with only if there is an order of the highcourt. The judgment of the Full Bench followed by the DivisionBench has an enuring effect on all the authorities. There will be a direction to the 1[st] respondent to decide the appeal on merits within a period of six months, without asking for20% of the demanded amount, after affording an opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner and the revenue and pass a reasonableand speaking order. The writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Jm/ AMIT RAWAL JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19.12.2019 ALONG WITH COMPUTATION SHEET.EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 19.12.2019.EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 16.1.2020.EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 18.03.2020. EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.07.2019 IN W.A.1536 OF 2019.