Wa/1957/2013 Of Kadalundi Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR &THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/25TH POUSHA, 1935 WA.No. 1957 of 2013 (E) IN WP(C).21846/2013 --------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21846/2013 DATED 03-09-2013 APPELLANT --------------- KADALUNDI SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD,F 1500 KADALUNDI POST, KADALUNDI, REP BY ITS SECRETARY BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) I, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-01-2014,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR C.J. & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Writ Appeal No.1957 of 2013 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of January, 2014 JUDGMENT Shaffique, J This appeal is filed by the writ petitioner. The writ petitionwas filed challenging Ext.P6 conditional order of stay passed onExt.P5 petition by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).The appeal was filed against an order of assessment passed bythe Assessing Officer. By Ext.P6 the Appellate Authority hadrejected the application for stay. When the matter waschallenged, the learned Single Judge modified the said order bypermitting the petitioner to remit one-third of the amount dueunder Ext.P3 order within a period of one month. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit thatthe appellant-Society is entitled for exemption under Section 80(P) of the Income Tax Act. However, this matter has to beconsidered by the appellate authority on merits. Learned Writ Appeal No.1957 of 2013 counsel would further submit that while dismissing the said staypetition, the Appellate Authority had in fact come to the findingregarding the liability to pay tax which will affect furtherproceedings. 3. Having gone through the judgment of the learned SingleJudge, we do not think that any interference is required to thesaid judgment as the learned Single Judge had exercised thediscretion by modifying Ext.P6 order and permitting thepetitioner to pay one-third of the amount as a condition for stay. 4.However, taking into consideration the arguments of thelearned counsel for the appellant, we direct the 1[st] respondent todispose of the appeal within a period of three months from thedate of receipt of a copy of this judgment, untrammeled by any ofthe observations made at Ext.P6. This writ petition is disposed of as above. MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.