Heard Both Sides v. Wp(C)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR MONDAY, THE 2 DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 13855 OF 2021 PETITIONER: THE PULLUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK NO.F.550, PULLUR, THRISSUR-680 683, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENTS: 1THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, KERALA-673 001.2THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1), THRISSUR, OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHANTHAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 001. 3ADDL.R3: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE DELHI - 110001 ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 16.07.2021 IN IA NO. 1/2021. BY ADVS.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.)JOSE JOSEPHJOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON02.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Heard both sides. 2.It is reported that the statutory appeal challenging theassessment order at the instance of the petitioner is pendingconsideration of the 3[rd] respondent. Learned counsel for the petitionersubmits that the subject matter of the appeal is covered by thejudgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd & Others Vs Commissioner of Income Tax andAnother reported in 2021 (1) KHC 303. He submits that in identicalmatter, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has directed disposal ofthe appeal, without insisting for payment of 20% of the disputed taxamount. He place reliance on judgment dated 01.07.2019 in writ appealsno. 1529, 1530, 1535 and 1536 of 2019 in the matter of the “TheAngadippuram Service Co-operative Bank Vs. The Commissionerof Income Tax (Appeals) and Another.” 3.The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondentsdisputes the fact that the subject matter is covered by the judgment inthe matter of the Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and submitted thatpurpose of the petition can be served if the statutory appeal is directedto be decided by the 3[rd] respondent in a time bound manner. In this view of the matter, the petition is ordered by directing the3[rd] respondent to decide the appeal challenging the assessment orderfinally without insisting for payment of 20% of the disputed tax amountwithin a period of six months from the date of this judgment. Tilldisposal of the appeal, the recovery in pursuant to the assessment orderbe kept in abeyance. Sd/- Nsd A.M.BADARJUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13855/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25.03.2021 ALONG WITH COMPUTATION SHEET.Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 25.03.2021.Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 22.04.2021.Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF FORM SHOWING THE DATE OF FILING AS 22.04.2021.Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.07.2021.Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 07.07.2021.Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.8614 OF 2020 DATED 18.03.2020.Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO.1536 OF 2019 DATED 01.07.2019.//true copy//PA to Judge