Wp(C)/15815/2011 Of Thodupuzha Service Co-Operative v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2011 / 30TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 15815 of 2011(B)----------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- THODUPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO-969, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THODUPUZHA P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT BY ADVS. SRI.JOICE GEORGE SRI.TOM E. JACOB RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (CIB), KOCHI, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB), KOCHI, K.K.TOWERS, 5TH FLOOR, OPP.MAHARAJA'S GROUND, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM-11. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB), KOCHI, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB), KOCHI, K.K.TOWERS, 5TH FLOOR, OPP.MAHARAJA'S GROUND, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM-11 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CIB), KOCHI, OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM 4. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI - 110 008. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15815 of 2011(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. ITO/(CIB) KOCHI/CO-OPCS/2010-11 DATED09.03.2011.09.03.2011. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 26.04.2010 IN SLP NOS. 11454 -11467/2010 OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.11467/2010 OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO. 290/2010 DATED 22.02.2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15815 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21[st] day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Co-operative bank. They are aggrievedby the proceedings initiated by the Income Tax authoritiesdirecting the petitioner to furnish details as per Section 133(6) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the petitioner, the veryquestion as to the liability of similarly placed petitioners fordivulging the information called for is pending in appeal beforethe Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has granted a stay inthe appeal pending before the Supreme Court. They furthersubmit that in view of the pendency of the appeal and stay by theSupreme Court, this Court has also considered and passed ordersin respect of the subject matter in W.A.No.290/2010. Thepetitioner submits that they are also entitled to similar reliefs. 2.I have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department also. In W.A.No.290/2010, by Ext.P3judgment, a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows: “This writ appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge disposing the applicant'schallenge against the details called for by theIncome Tax Department, following the DivisionBench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.2553 of2009 and connected cases. Even though theDivision Bench upheld the similar notices anddeclared entitlement of the Department to call fordetails from the Co-operative Banks, theHonourable Supreme Court has granted stay againstoperation of the judgment. In the circumstances, we dispose of this writappeal with a direction to the respondents toproceed against the appellant based on fresh ordersor final judgment of the Supreme Court in thepending matters. In other words, the judgment ofthe Supreme Court in the pending cases will befollowed in the case of the appellant as well withoutinsisting the parties to take up the matter to theSupreme Court. I am satisfied that this writ petition can also be disposed of interms of that judgment. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of in terms ofthat judgment. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd