Wp(C)/22171/2021 Of The Karannur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. Income Tax Officer
High Court
13 Oct 2021 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/22171/2021 Of The Karannur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. Income Tax Officer
Date of order
13 Oct 2021
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp(C)/22171/2021 Of The Karannur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2021) decided the matter.
Decision: The writ petition is disposed of as above.
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 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 21ST ASWINA, 1943WP(C) NO. 22171 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
THE KARANNUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.ELATHUR P.O., KOZHIKODE 673 303, REP.BY SHYLAJA K.P., SECRETARYBY ADVS.P.RAGHUNATHANPREMJIT NAGENDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD 1(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE 673 0012JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXRANGE -1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE 673 0013COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE 673 0014INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
COCHIN BENCH, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM 682 037
SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON13.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
-------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 22171 of 2021
--------------------------------
Dated this the 13[th] day of October, 2021
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 orders of penalty
relating to assessment years 2015-16 under Sections271D and 271E, petitioner has preferred second appeals
before the 4[th] respondent, copies of which are producedas Ext.P6 and Ext.P7. Petitions for stay of proceedingspursuant to the assessment orders have also been filedas Ext.P8 and Ext.P9. Petitioner apprehends coerciveproceedings to be effected even before the petition forstay is considered. Hence this writ petition.
2.
Having considered the submissions of the
Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, Iam of the opinion that this writ petition itself can bedisposed of with a direction.
3.Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 4[th]
respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 and
Ext.P9 stay petitions, within period of three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till suchdecision is taken, all coercive proceedings shall be keptin abeyance.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
AJ/13.10.2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22171/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITSExhibit P1PHOTOCOPY OF PENALTY ORDER U/S.271D DT. 26.7.2018 FOR 2015-16Exhibit P2PHOTOCOPY OF PENALTY ORDER U/S.271E DT. 26.7.2018 FOR 2015-16Exhibit P3PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.3620/2019 DT.7.2.2019Exhibit P4PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF CITA IN ITA 10426/CIT/CLT/2018-19 DT. 19.3.2020Exhibit P5PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF CITA IN ITA 10424/CIT/CLT/2018-19 DT. 20.3.2020Exhibit P6PHOTOCOPY OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE ITAT AGAINSTEXT. P4 ORDER DATED 27.5.2020Exhibit P7PHOTOCOPY OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE ITAT AGAINSTEXT.P-5 ORDER DATED 21.5.2020Exhibit P8PHOTOCOPY OF STAY PETITION FILED IN EXT. P6 APPEALExhibit P9PHOTOCOPY OF STAY PETITION FILED IN EXT. P7 APPEALExhibit P10RR NOTICE DT. 7.10.2021
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.