Wp(C)/31866/2019 Of Nadapuram 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 MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941 WP(C).No.31866 OF 2019(G) PETITIONER: NADAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, F-721REP BY ITS SECRETARY, KALLACHI P.O., VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 506 BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMARSRI.P.C.GOPINATHSMT.BINDU SREEDHARSHRI.ASIF N RESPONDENTS: 1INCOME TAX OFFICERAAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE-673 001AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE-673 0012JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT,RANGE-2,KOZHIKODE-673 001OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT,RANGE-2,KOZHIKODE-673 0013COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE-673 001AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE-673 001 BY ADV SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.11.2019,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 penalty order under the Income Tax Act, thepetitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition beforethe 3[rd] respondent. By Ext.P4 order, the 3[rd] respondent directed paymentof 20% of the disputed amount as a condition for stay of recovery of thebalance amount pending disposal of the appeal. The learned counsel forthe petitioner points out that in almost identical circumstances, takingnote of the huge financial implication for Primary Agricultural CreditSocieties like the petitioner, this Court had quashed similar stay ordersand directed the appellate authority to pass final orders in the appealwithin three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment,and stayed the recovery proceedings for the disputed amount, in themeanwhile. It is prayed that a similar order be passed in the instantcase as well. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioneras also the learned Standing counsel appearing for the Income TaxDepartment. 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the caseas also the submissions made across the bar and taking note of Ext.P5 W.P.(C).No.31866 of 2019 judgment of this Court passed in almost identical circumstances, Idispose the Writ Petition by quashing Ext.P4 order and directing the 3[rd]respondent, before whom Ext.P2 appeal has been preferred by thepetitioner against orders of penalty passed against it under the IncomeTax Act, to consider and pass orders on the same, expeditiously, afterhearing the petitioner, within three months from the date of receipt of acopy of this judgment. It is made clear that pending disposal of appealsby the 3[rd] respondent, and communication of the orders to the petitioner,there will be a stay of further proceedings for recovery of amountsconfirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 penalty order. The petitionershall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of thisjudgment, before the 3[rd] respondent, for further action. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE