Wp(C)/33520/2010 Of The Tiruvali Service Co-Op.bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer (Cib)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33520 of 2010(L) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ THE TIRUVALI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.F 1403, THIRUVALI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.DALBI EMMANUEL, SRI.A.V.JAMES. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------------ 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (CIB), O/O. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV), KOZHIKODE. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, 8TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN NORTH BLOCK, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CIB), COCHIN, ERNAKULAM. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 33520 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 4[th] day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1 notice under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Contention of the petitioner is that being a Co-operativeSociety, the petitioner will not come within the purview ofthe definition of “person” contained in the provisions of theIncome Tax Act. The dispute now stands covered byjudgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.2333of 2009 and connected cases (dated 24-11-2009). Whileupholding that, institutions like that of the petitioner willcome within the purview of 133(6), this Court observed thatnotices shall be issued only with prior permission of theDirector or the Commissioner, as the case may be, and ifthe notices did not disclose any such permission, the matterneed be considered afresh by the authority concerned. 2. It is brought to my notice that the judgment citedabove has already been taken up in appeal, as S.L.P.(C) W.P.(C) No. 33520/2010 No.3976/2010 before the Honourable Supreme Court. The S.L.P. was admitted and interim stay was granted againstoperation of the said judgment. 3. The position being so, it is not proper for the respondents to proceed with further steps pursuant toExt.P1 notice. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed ofquashing Ext.P1, reserving liberty of the respondents topursue further steps depending on outcome of the matterpending before the Honourable Supreme Court. C. K. ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. mn.