Wp(C)/1680/2011 Of Kunnirikka Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cib)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2011 / 28TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1680 of 2011(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KUNNIRIKKA SERVICE CO-OPERATIAVE BANK LTD., PATHRIYAD, KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN SRI.K.SATHYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CIB), KOCHI- PIN 682 031 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (INV.), 8TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NORTH BLOCK, KOZHIKODE-673 001 ADV. MR. JOSE JOSEPH - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.1680 OF 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 18[th] day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Co-operative Bank. They are aggrievedby the direction of the Income Tax Department to furnish detailsof depositors having more than Rs.1 lakh deposit with the bank.According to the petitioner, if such information is divulged, it willaffect the confidentiality of the transactions between the bankand the depositors, which would be detrimental to the veryexistence of the co-operative banking movement itself. 2.I have heard the learned Standing Counsel for theIncome Tax Department. The learned Standing Counsel submitsthat in respect of a similar case, the Supreme Court has granteda stay in SLP No.3976/2010 against a judgment of this Court inW.A.No.1854/2009 in which a similar challenge was upheld. Hefurther submits that in view of the said order, this writ petitionmay be disposed of without prejudice to the right of the IncomeTax Department to take further action in accordance with the W.P.(C)No.1680/10 orders to be passed in the said SLP. 3.Having heard both sides, I dispose of this writpetition with the following directions: Till a decision is taken by the Supreme Court in SLPNo.3976/2010 or the interim order therein is vacated, therespondents shall not enforce Ext.P1 order or similar noticesagainst the petitioner. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd