Thenhipalam Co-Operative Rural Bank Ltdno.m-668, 6/749, 1St Floor, Thenhipalam P.o., Malappuram v. Menonmeera V.menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 12 DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1943WP(C) NO. 16488 OF 2021 PETITIONER: THENHIPALAM CO-OPERATIVE RURAL BANK LTDNO.M-668, 6/749, 1ST FLOOR, THENHIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LATHA TALAPPILBY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENONMEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-676 1012COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI-110 001SRI. CRISTOPHER ABRAHAM - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSIONON 12.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The petitioner, which is stated to be a Co-operative Bank, has approached this Court impugningExt.P5 order issued by the Income Tax Departmentunder Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,rejecting its statutory Appeal solely for the reasonthat “no Chellan evidencing payment of fees has beenenclosed with the Appeal” (sic). 2. The petitioner asserts that, as is evidentfrom Ext.P3, necessary fees had been remitted asearly as on 22.02.2016 and therefore, that theAuthority could not have issued Ext.P5 order in themanner as it is presently worded. The petitioner,therefore, prays that Ext.P5 be set aside and the 2[nd]respondent be directed to take up Ext.P2 statutoryAppeal and dispose it of on its merits. 3. Shri.Christopher Abraham, learned StandingCounsel appearing for the respondents, conceded thatsince Ext.P3 evidences the payment of necessaryfees, Ext.P2 Appeal will have to be decided by the WP(C) NO. 16488 OF 2021 3 competent Authority in terms of law. He, however,submitted that since the “Faceless Appeal Scheme”has already came into force, it may not be the 2[nd]respondent who is the competent Authority; and thusprayed that this Court may allow such Authority totake up the Appeal and dispose it of in terms oflaw. 4. I, therefore, asked Shri.Harisankar V.Menon,learned counsel for the petitioner, whether hisclient is insisting that the 2[nd ]respondent himselfmust hear Ext.P2 Appeal, to which, he responded bysaying that his client only wants its contentions tobe properly appreciated by a competent Authority andtherefore, leaves it to this Court to issueappropriate orders. In the afore circumstances and since I am convinced that the necessary fees in support ofExt.P2 Appeal has already been paid by thepetitioner, as is evident from Ext.P3, I allow thiswrit petition and set aside Ext.P5; with a resultantdirection to the competent Authority of the Income WP(C) NO. 16488 OF 2021 4 Tax Department to take up Ext.P2 Appeal and disposeit of as per law, following due procedure. Sd/- MC/18.8 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16488/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITSExhibit P1COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ISSUED BY THE1ST RESPONDENTExhibit P2COPY OF APPEAL IS FILED BY THE PETITIONERBEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) KOZHIKODEExhibit P3COPY OF TAX PAYER COUNTERFOIL OF THE STATE BANK OF INDIA OF RS .1000/-Exhibit P4COPY OF NOTICE IS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENTExhibit P5COPY OF ORDER IS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14