Wp(C)/1272/2016 Of Kakkoor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The Joint Director Of Income Tax (Intelligence)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/13TH MAGHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 1272 of 2016 (H) --------------------------- PETITIONER : ---------------------- THE KAKKOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.163, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SHRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR, KAKKOOR POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 662. BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE), K.K.TOWERS, 5TH FLOOR, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11 K.K.TOWERS, 5TH FLOOR, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - III, KOCHI, PANANPILLY NAGAR - 682 016. 3. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. REGISTRAR, KAKKANAD POST, ERNAKULAM. COCHIN BENCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. REGISTRAR, KAKKANAD POST, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 1272 of 2016 (H) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S. 156 OF THE IT ACT ISSUED BY THE1ST RESPONDENT ON 19.09.20141ST RESPONDENT ON 19.09.2014 P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE DISMISSAL ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30/06/2015. DATED 30/06/2015. P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE APEAL FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 17.09.2015.17.09.2015. P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION STATEMENT DATED 26/10/2015 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITAT COCHIN BENCH DATED 15/02/2015. DATED 15/02/2015. P6-TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2012-13 DATED 29/04/2014. 29/04/2014. P7-TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY2013-14 DATED 21/09/201521/09/2015 P8COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 19/09/2014.19/09/2014. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------------ NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J..............................................................W.P.(C).No.1272 Of 2016.............................................................Dated this the 2[nd] day of February, 2016 J U D G M E N T The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P5 order ofthe 3[rd] respondent Tribunal whereby the said Tribunal hasdismissed an appeal preferred by the petitioner against Ext.P2order of the 2[nd] respondent. In Ext.P5 order, the 3[rd] respondentTribunal has found that the Registry has noted a defect in respectof the appeal preferred by the petitioner before it, stating that thepetitioner had filed only a single appeal against Ext.P2 order whichcovered a period of three assessment years namely assessmentyears 2011-2012 to 2013-2014. The Registry was of the view thatthe petitioner needed to file three appeals in respect of each of theassessment years that were covered by Ext.P2 order of the 2[nd]respondent. It is the contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioner that inasmuch as the appeal before the 3[rd] respondentTribunal was preferred only against a single order passed by the2[nd] respondent, irrespective of the fact that it covered a period ofthree assessment years, the requirement in law was only to file a single appeal before the 3[rd] respondent Tribunal. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe petitioner as also the learned Standing counsel for therespondents. single appeal before the 3[rd] respondent Tribunal. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe petitioner as also the learned Standing counsel for therespondents. 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of thecase and the submissions made across the bar, I find force in thecontention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that againstExt.P2 order of the 2[nd] respondent, which is a single order ofpenalty, the petitioner need have filed only a single appeal beforethe 3[rd] respondent appellate Tribunal. The learned Standingcounsel for the respondents has not brought to my notice anyprovisions under the rules which would require me to hold to thecontrary. It is also observed that Ext.P8 order, against which thepetitioner had approached the 2[nd] respondent through an appeal,itself imposed a penalty only for the period from 28.05.2014 to19.09.2014. On an overall consideration of the matter, I amconvinced that the petitioner need have filed only one appeal,against Ext.P2 order of the 2[nd] respondent which dismissed hisappeal against an order of penalty that was passed against him by W.P.(C). No.1272 of 2016 the 1[st] respondent. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P5 order and direct the 3[rd] respondent Tribunal to restore the appeal preferred by thepetitioner on file, if it is otherwise in order, and proceed to herethe matter on merits. The writ petition disposed as above. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE