Wp(C)/29776/2019 Of Vakathanam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019/15TH KARTHIKA, 1941 W.P(C).No.29776 OF 2019(V) PETITIONER: VAKATHANAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NJALIANKUZHI, VAKATHANAM, KERALA 686011, REPRESENTED BY IT S SECRETARY, MERCYAMMA JOSEPH. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIRSRI.R.SREEJITHSMT. ARYA ANILSHRI.GOKULRAJ L.SMT.SRI HARINI S.P. RESPONDENTS: 1INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD -3 , THIRUVALLA - 689 1012THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)KOTTAYAM - 686 001 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSIONON 06.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T On receipt of Exts.P1 and P2 assessment orders under theIncome Tax Act, for the years 2013-14 and 2015-16, the petitionerhas preferred Ext.P4 appeal and Ext.P5 stay petition against Ext.P2assessment order before the 2[nd] respondent. In respect of Ext.P1assessment order, the proceedings culminated in Ext.P3 order ofthe 1[st] appellate authority, in favour of the petitioner.Although thedepartment has preferred a further appeal before the AppellateTribunal, no orders have been passed by the said forum till date.Notwithstanding the aforementioned facts, Ext.P6 demand noticewas issued demanding tax that was confirmed against the petitionerby Exts.P1 and P2 assessment orders. The case of the petitioner isessentially that, while the demand pertaining to Ext.P1 assessmentorder could not have been raised at all, the demand pertaining toExt.P2 assessment order ought not to have been pursued pendingconsideration of the stay petition by the 2[nd] respondent. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case asalso the submissions made across the bar, I dispose the writ petitionwith a direction to the 2[nd] respondent to consider and pass orders onExt.P5 stay petition within a period of two months from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner.Recovery steps, pursuant to Ext.P6 demand notice, shall be kept inabeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 2[nd] respondent, asdirected, and the orders communicated to the petitioner. Thepetitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with acopy of this judgment, before the 2[nd] respondent, for further action.The respondents may consider issuing revised demand noticespursuant to the findings of the appellate authorities in the appealsbefore them. Sd/-A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE W.P.(C).No.29776/2019 : 4 : APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED29.03.2016 FOR THE A.Y.2013-14.29.03.2016 FOR THE A.Y.2013-14. EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED16.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENTFOR THE A.Y. 2015-16.16.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENTFOR THE A.Y. 2015-16. EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED29.08.2018 FOR THE A.Y 2013-1429.08.2018 FOR THE A.Y 2013-14 EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY APPEAL FILEDBEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE A.Y2015-16BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE A.Y2015-16 EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR THE YEAR2015-16 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE2ND RESPONDENT.2015-16 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED FORA.Y 2013-14 AND 2015-16 ISSUED BY THE FIRSTRESPONDENT.A.Y 2013-14 AND 2015-16 ISSUED BY THE FIRSTRESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE