Rp/52/2022 Of Thuravoor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 21 DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 1ST MAGHA, 1943 RP NO. 52 OF 2022 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.12.2021 IN WP(C) 29980/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER/ REVIEW PETITIONER : THURAVOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.E-69, THURAVOOR P.O., ANGAMALI, ERNAKULAM - 683 572 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV C.A.JOJO RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS : 1INCOME TAX OFFICER,KOCHI - 683 101.KOCHI - 683 101. WARD-(3), ALUVA P.O., R.S.ROAD, 2COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),NEW DELHI - 110 001.NEW DELHI - 110 001. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, 3COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2,OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL REVENUE TOWER, KOCHI - 682 018.OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL REVENUE TOWER, KOCHI - 682 018. 4THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,ERNAKULAM - 682 018.ERNAKULAM - 682 018. C.R.BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= R.P.No.52 of 2022in W.P.(C)No.29980 of 2021 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 21[st] day of January, 2022 ORDER This review petition is preferred seeking to review the judgment dated 22.12.2021. As per the judgment under review, thisCourt had directed Ext.P4 stay petition to be considered in a time boundmanner. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in allsimilar matters, this Court had been, instead of ordering the stay petitionto be considered, directing the appeal itself to be disposed of and havegranted interim reliefs against coercive proceedings in the meantime. Thelearned counsel submits that petitioner also stands in the similar footingand that the direction to consider the stay petition alone amounts to anerror apparent on the face of record. 3. The learned counsel further submitted that as a matter offact, the stay petition was considered by the assessing officer himself andhad granted a stay on condition of deposit of 20% and while disposing ofthe writ petition by the order under review, this Court failed to notice thesaid fact, which also amounts to an error apparent on the face of record. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, I am satisfied thatthere is an error apparent on the face of record, warranting review of thejudgment. Accordingly the judgment dated 22.12.2021 in WP(C)No.29980/2021 shall stand recalled. The review petition is allowed. RKM Sd/-BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE