Wp(C)/31817/2015 Of The Pattikkad Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/27TH ASWINA, 1937 WP(C).No. 31817 of 2015 (B) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------- THE PATTIKKAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD No.P 455, PATTIKKAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 679 325, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: -------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE-673 001.AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (4), TIRUR-676101. BY SC, SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FORADMISSION ON 19-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 31817 of 2015 (B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1:COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 7.3.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2:COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 30.3.3015 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.1ST RESPONDENT. P3:COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 8.4.2015 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P4:COPY OF THE STAY ORDER DATED 23.10.2014 ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN I.A.NO.2573 OF 2014 IN ITA NO.198 OF 2014.THIS HON'BLE COURT IN I.A.NO.2573 OF 2014 IN ITA NO.198 OF 2014. P5:COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY.PETITIONER SOCIETY. P6:COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ITA 23/TRR/CIT(A)/15-16 DATED 25.9.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.25.9.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. =========================================== W.P.(C). No. 31817 of 2015 =====================================================Dated this the 19[th] day of October, 2015 JUDGMENT The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P6 orderpassed by the 1[st] respondent, in an appeal preferred by thepetitioner against an assessment order under the Income Tax Act.The case of the petitioner in the writ petition is essentially that,while passing Ext.P6 order, the 1[st] respondent did not exercise itsdiscretion validly. It is submitted that the main issue involved inthe appeal is also the subject matter of an ITA before this Court, inwhich this Court had granted a complete stay against recovery ofamounts confirmed against the petitioner during the pendency ofthe appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submitthat the ITA has since been heard and it has been reserved forjudgment. It is in the meanwhile, that Ext.P6 order has beenpassed in appeals preferred by the petitioner on the same issue. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the caseas also the submissions made across the bar, I find that in Ext.P6order, the 1[st] respondent has directed the petitioner to deposit theentire amount confirmed against him by the assessment order, as acondition for hearing the appeal. Inasmuch as the issue involved inthe appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending consideration W.P.(C). No. 31817 of 2015 before this Court in ITAs preferred by the petitioner and similarlysituated persons, and this Court has granted a complete stayagainst recovery, pending disposal of the Income Tax Appeal, Iquash Ext.P6 order and direct the 1[st] respondent to consider andpass orders in Ext.P2 appeal preferred by the petitioner, within aperiod of three months, after hearing the petitioner. I make itclear that, pending disposal of the appeal, the recovery steps, ifany, initiated against the petitioner for recovery of amountsconfirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order, shallbe kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed as above. Sd/-A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE