Wp(C)/24232/2010 Of The Thenhipalam Service Co-Op Bank v. The Income Tax Officer And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2010 / 12TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24232 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- THE THENHIPALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.1969 REP BY ITS PRESIDENT THENHIPALAM PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. U.K.DEVIDAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (CIB) OFFICE OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV) KOZHIKODE. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX KOZHIKODE. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CIB) COCHIN, ERNAKULAM. 4. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI. BY MR. JOSE JOSEPH, STANDING COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAXES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2010,ALONG WITH WP (C) Nos. 24234 & 24270 of 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) Nos. 24232, 24234 & 24270 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 3[rd] day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners in all these cases are challenging thesustainability of Ext.P1 notice issued under Section 133(6) of theIncome Tax Act, raising many a ground, mainly contending, that thepetitioners do not come within the purview of the term 'person' asdefined under the Income Tax Act. 2.When similar matters came up for consideration before thisCourt earlier, interference was declined; which led to Writ Appeal No.2333 of 2009 and connected cases, upholding the verdict passed bythe learned Single Judge; however giving some specific directions as tothe course to be pursued by the Income Tax authorities. The main pointconsidered was, whether the notice similar to Ext.P1 was issued with'prior permission' of the Director or the Commissioner, as the case maybe, and if the notice did not disclose any such prior permission, thematter was directed to be re-examined by the authority concerned andif it was found that there was no prior permission, further proceedingswere permitted to be pursued only after obtaining such permission. 3.Being aggrieved of the verdict passed by the DivisionBench, the matter has already been taken up before the Apex Court by : 2 : filing SLP (C) No. 3976 of 2010, which has been admitted, also grantinginterim stay. This being the position, this Court finds that therespondents are not justified in proceeding with Ext.P1 notice anyfurther, till the issue is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4.In the above circumstances, the respondents are directedto keep all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 in abeyance for thetime being and steps shall be pursued only subject to the final outcomeof the SLP now pending consideration before the Honourable SupremeCourt. The Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd