Wp(C)/18399/2017 Of Mylapra Service Co-Operative Bank Td.( v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2017/12TH JYAISHTA, 1939 WP(C).No. 18399 of 2017 (Y) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:---------- MYLAPRA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.(NO.639) P.O.MYLAPARA TOWN, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 678, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR.JOSHUA MATHEW BY ADVS.SRI.A.KUMAR SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR SMTG.MINI(1748) SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOTTAYAM 686 001. KOTTAYAM 686 001. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2, THIRUVALLA 689 101. WARD -2, THIRUVALLA 689 101. 3. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM 686 001. KOTTAYAM 686 001. 4. THE SECRETARY, THE PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 645. R1 TO R3 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP,SC K.V. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18399 of 2017 (Y) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY PETITION EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER FOR APPLICATION FOR STAY PETITION PETITION EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 18/2015 DATED 2.11.2015 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ORDEREXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAMEXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE BANK RESPONDENT TO THE BANK EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.5.2017 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL ----------------------- /TRUE COPY/ K.V. P.A.TO JUDGE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. W.P.(C).No.18399 of 2017 .............................................................Dated this the 2[nd] day of June, 2017 J U D G M E N T The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P4 order ofstay passed by the 1[st] respondent in an appeal preferred by thepetitioner against Ext.P1 assessment order for the assessment year2014-2015. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner thatthe issue involved in the appeal has already been decided in favourof the petitioner by Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal, which in turnfollows a judgment of this Court. It is, therefore, the case of thepetitioner that the 1[st] respondent erred in directing the payment ofthe entire tax amount confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1order, and denying a stay of recovery during the pendency of theappeal before the 1[st] respondent. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner, the learned Standing counsel for the Income TaxDepartment and the learned Standing counsel for the 4[th] respondent bank. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner, the learned Standing counsel for the Income TaxDepartment and the learned Standing counsel for the 4[th] respondent bank. 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of thecase and the submissions made across the bar, I find that, in thelight of the decision of the Tribunal, which is squarely in favour ofthe petitioner on the issue in question, it was not open to the 1[st]respondent to reject the stay petition filed by the petitioner. I,therefore, quash Ext.P4 order and direct the 1[st] respondent toconsider and pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal expeditiously afterhearing the petitioner. I make it clear that till such time as ordersare passed by the 1[st] respondent in the appeal and the orderscommunicated to the petitioner, recovery steps for recovery ofamounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 assessmentorder shall be kept in abeyance. Needless to say, in the light ofthe directions in this judgment, the 1[st] respondent shall alsoforthwith recall Ext.P8 communication issued to the 4[th] respondentbank. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns/02.06.17 W.P.(C).No.18399 of 2017 -3-