Case LawHigh Court › Wp(C)/17762/2024 Of The Paravur Service...

Wp(C)/17762/2024 Of The Paravur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer

High Court 23 May 2024 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/17762/2024 Of The Paravur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer
Date of order
23 May 2024
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Wp(C)/17762/2024 Of The Paravur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2024) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: Hence, I find no groundto interfere with the on going recovery proceedings andtherefore, the writ petition lacks any valid substance,which is hereby dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH THURSDAY, THE 23 DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946WP(C) NO. 17762 OF 2024 PETITIONER/S: THE PARAVUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.1801REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARAVUR P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691301 BY ADVS.ARJUN RAGHAVANT.R.HARIKUMARPOOJA PANKAJ RESPONDENT/S: 1THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KARBALA JUNCTION, KOLLAM., PIN - 691350 2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NORTH BLOCK, DELHI., PIN - 110001 3THE REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, BLOCK NO.C1 & C2, 1ST FLOOR, KAKKANAD, COCHIN., PIN - 682030 BY ADVS.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAMP.R.AJITH KUMAR(K/000708/1998)ADV. P.G. JAYASHANKAR PGJKEERTHIVAS GIRICHRISTOPHER ABRAHAMP.R.AJITH KUMAR(K/000708/1998)ADV. P.G. JAYASHANKAR PGJKEERTHIVAS GIRI OTHER PRESENT: SRI. G. KEERTHIVAS- SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON23.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Dated this the 23[rd] day of May, 2024 The present writ petition has been filed under Article226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the following prayers:- i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, orderor direction, directing the 3rd respondent to considerand pass orders in Ext-P5 delay condonation petition,after affording an opportunity of hearing to thepetitioner, within a time span fixed by this Hon’bleCourt ; ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, orderor direction, directing the 3rd respondent to considerand pass orders in Ext-P3 appeal, or in the alternate inExt-P4 stay petition, after affording an opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner, within a time span fixed bythis Hon’ble Court ; iii)to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, orderor direction, directing the 1[st] respondent not toproceed with recovery of the demand based on theassessment order for the year 2017-2018, till Ext.P4stay petition disposed of by 3[rd] respondent Tribunal; iv)to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, orderor direction, directing the 1[st] respondent not toproceed with recovery of the demand based on theassessment order for the year 2017-2018, till Ext.P3appeal disposed of by 3[rd] respondent Tribunal; 2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he would confine the submissions to the extent that norecovery should be effected from the petitioner inpursuance to the assessment order in Ext.P1, till thedisposal of delay application and the stay petition, pendingbefore the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitionerhas filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order passed by the second respondent with the delay of 700days. The litigant who has not been vigilant about hisstatutory rights cannot seek equitable jurisdiction of thiscourt under Article 226 of the Constitution of India fordeferring the amount recoverable in pursuance to theassessment order, particularly, where he has filed theappeal with the delay of 700 days. Hence, I find no groundto interfere with the on going recovery proceedings andtherefore, the writ petition lacks any valid substance,which is hereby dismissed. SJ Sd/- DINESH KUMAR SINGHJUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17762/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERALONG WITH THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR THEASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-2018 DATED 29-11-2019ALONG WITH THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR THEASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-2018 DATED 29-11-2019 EXHIBIT-P2A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25-08-2021 ISSUED BY THE FIRST APPELLATEAUTHORITY2021 ISSUED BY THE FIRST APPELLATEAUTHORITY SJ Sd/- DINESH KUMAR SINGHJUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17762/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERALONG WITH THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR THEASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-2018 DATED 29-11-2019ALONG WITH THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR THEASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-2018 DATED 29-11-2019 EXHIBIT-P2A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25-08-2021 ISSUED BY THE FIRST APPELLATEAUTHORITY2021 ISSUED BY THE FIRST APPELLATEAUTHORITY EXHIBIT-P3A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUMDATED 02-11-2023, FILED BY THEPETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENTTRIBUNALDATED 02-11-2023, FILED BY THEPETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENTTRIBUNAL EXHIBIT-P4A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION ALONGWITH AFFIDAVIT FILED IN EXT-P3 APPEAL,DATED 02-11-2023WITH AFFIDAVIT FILED IN EXT-P3 APPEAL,DATED 02-11-2023 EXHIBIT-P5A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT ANDPETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY DATED02-11-2023PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY DATED02-11-2023EXHIBIT-P6A TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 01-11-2023 FILED BY THE TAX PRACTITIONER2023 FILED BY THE TAX PRACTITIONEREXHIBIT-P7A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15-03-2024 IN WP(C) NO.10742 OF 2024 OF THISHON'BLE COURT2024 IN WP(C) NO.10742 OF 2024 OF THISHON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT-P8A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15-11-2023 IN W.A NO.1972 OF 2023 OF THISHON'BLE COURT2023 IN W.A NO.1972 OF 2023 OF THISHON'BLE COURT
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan