Wa/1027/2016 Of The Kidangoor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/18TH JYAISHTA, 1938 WA.No. 1027 of 2016 () IN WP(C).6043/2016 ------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 6043/2016 DATED 17-02-2016 AND ORDER INRP.230/16 DATED 21.3.2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: ------------ THE KIDANGOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. 3431. KIDANGOOR PO, KIDANGOOR, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: -------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOTTAYAM-686-001 AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOTTAYAM-686-001 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5, KOTTAYAM-686001 WARD 5, KOTTAYAM-686001 R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-06-2016, THECOURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. -----------------------------------W.A.No.1027 of 2016 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 8[th] day of June, 2016 JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. 1. Appellant filed the writ petition challenging Ext.P8appellate order passed by the first respondentdismissing the statutory appeal filed by it. By thejudgment under appeal, learned single Judge relegatedthe appellant to pursue the statutory remedy ofappeal before the appellate Tribunal. The judgmentunder appeal also records that on the request of theappellant, time was granted for filing such appeal.Subsequently, RP.230/16 was filed. Though the RP wasdismissed by order dated 21.3.2016, further time wasgranted on the request made by the appellant forfiling appeal before the Tribunal. It is thereafterthat this writ appeal has been filed. 2.We heard learned counsel for the appellant andlearned Government Pleader appearing for therespondents.learned Government Pleader appearing for therespondents. 3. First of all, according to us, this Court should notentertain this appeal on ground of propriety itself.entertain this appeal on ground of propriety itself. Reading of the judgment in the writ petition and alsothe order in the RP show that on both occasions,submissions were made before the learned single Judgethat the appellant intends to file statutory appealand on that basis, time was also got extended. Theconduct of the appellant in filing a writ appeal,after having made such submissions and got extensionof time, according to us, is a highly objectionableone. For that reason itself, the appeal should bedismissed. Even apart from that, Ext.P8 is the order passed bythe first appellate authority under the Income TaxAct. Against such an order, the Act itself providesfor further remedy before the Tribunal. This,precisely, is what the learned single Judge has donein the judgment. For both the aforesaid reasons, theappeal is to be dismissed and we do so. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge. Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, Judge.kkb. /True copy/ PS to Judge