Case LawHigh Court › Wp(C)/32991/2016 Of Mararikulam Service...

Wp(C)/32991/2016 Of Mararikulam Service Co-Operative Bank Limited v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

High Court 14 Oct 2016 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/32991/2016 Of Mararikulam Service Co-Operative Bank Limited v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)
Date of order
14 Oct 2016
Assessment year(s)
2012-13, 2013-14
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Wp(C)/32991/2016 Of Mararikulam Service Co-Operative Bank Limited v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/22ND ASWINA, 1938 WP(C).No. 32991 of 2016 (Y) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- MARARIKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.1509, MARARIKULAM P.O., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.JACOB CHACKO RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) 1ST FLOOR, KOTTAYAM PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SASTHRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686001 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) 1ST FLOOR, KOTTAYAM PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SASTHRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686001 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO.2, DEVASWAM BUILDING, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688011. ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688011. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KANJIKUZHY BRANCH KANJIKUZHY, S L PURAM P.O., PIN-688523 KANJIKUZHY, S L PURAM P.O., PIN-688523 R1 & R2 BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, R3 BY SMT.K.N.RAJANI, SC, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS-----------------------EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.09.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENTEXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE AY2012-13 DATED 25.01.2016 WITH DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENTEXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE AY2013-14 DATE D25.01.2016 WITH DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENTEXHIBIT P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 01.03.2016 AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 20912-13EXHIBIT P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 01.03.2016 AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2013-14EXHIBIT P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 07.06.2016EXHIBIT P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.21836/2016 DATED 28.06.2016EXHIBIT P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN QA (C) NO.1615/2016 DATED 16.8.2016 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS bp A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.32991 of 2016----------------------------------- Dated this the 14[th] day of October, 2016 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had approached this Court seeking to quashExt.P1 notice and for a direction to grant one month time to pay thetax. 2. In fact the issue is already covered by the judgment of thisCourt in W.A.No.1615/2016 dated 16.08.2016 wherein Division Benchof this Court while modifying the order of the Single Judge issued thefollowing directions : “4. In such circumstances and having regard to thejudgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant,without expressing anything on merits, it is ordered that pendingdisposal of the appeals, recovery of the amount due under Exts.P1 and P2 shall stand stayed subject to the appellant remitRs.1,50,000/- each towards the amounts due under Exts. P1 andP2. The remittance shall be made within three weeks fromtoday. Subject to the above, Ext. P11 will stand set aside and thejudgment of the learned Single Judge will be stand modifiedaccordingly. The appeal is disposed of.” 3. Insofar as time has been granted by the Division Bench toremit the amount within three weeks, I don't think that this Court willbe justified in interfering with the demand made thereon, on noncompliance of the directions issued by the Division Bench. There isno reason to extend the time as prayed for. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan