Wp(C)/34624/2022 Of The Trithala Service Co-Operative Bank Limited v. Income Tax Officer
High Court
22 Nov 2022 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/34624/2022 Of The Trithala Service Co-Operative Bank Limited v. Income Tax Officer
Date of order
22 Nov 2022
Assessment year(s)
2013-1428, 2013-14, 2015-16
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp(C)/34624/2022 Of The Trithala Service Co-Operative Bank Limited v. Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2022) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 22 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 34624 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
RESPONDENT:
THE TRITHALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITEDP.O. BOX NO.1, TSCB BUILDINGS, THRITHALA POST,PATTAMBI, KERALAREPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.K.V.RAGESH, PIN - 679534BY ADVS.ANIL D. NAIRTELMA RAJUP.K.BIJUEDATHARA VINEETA KRISHNANANJANA A.
INCOME TAX OFFICERASSESSMENT UNITINCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001ADV. JOSE JOSEPH, STANDING COUNSELTHIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.11.2022,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 22[nd] day of November, 2022
The petitioner has approached this Court beingaggrieved by Ext.P6 order of assessment issued underthe provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for theassessment year 2020-21. According to the petitioner,the petitioner has not been given the benefit ofcertain deductions which the petitioner is entitled toand therefore the assessment order is bad in law.
2. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for therespondent Department states and points out that inseveral cases were similar claim for deduction hasbeen made, this Court has disposed of writ petitionsdirecting any statutory appeal filed against the orderof assessment shall be decided and till such time anydemand pursuant to the order of assessment shall bekept in abeyance. It is submitted that there are nocircumstances which would require this Court to take
WPC No.34624 of 2022
a different view in this matter.
3. Faced with this situation, the learned counselfor the petitioner states that the petitioner may beout of time for filing an appeal against Ext.P6 order ofassessment.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing forthe respondent Department, this writ petition willstand disposed of directing that if the petitioner filesan appeal against Ext.P6 order of assessment beforethe First Appellate Authority within a period of twoweeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy ofthis judgment, the period during which this writpetition was pending before this Court namely, from28.10.2022 till today (22.11.2022) shall be excludedfor the purpose of determining any period oflimitation within which such appeal had to be filed. Ifthe petitioner files an appeal within the period asaforesaid and it is found to be within time after
WPC No.34624 of 2022
excluding period as above, any recovery pursuant toExt.P6 order of assessment shall be kept in abeyancetill such appeal is decided by the First AppellateAuthority.
SKP/22-11
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34624/2022
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 3.3.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT3.3.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT DATED 12.5.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 12.5.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16.05.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERSUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.8.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTBY THE RESPONDENTEXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 6.9.2022 SUBMITTEDBY THE PETITIONERBY THE PETITIONEREXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTBY THE RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-1428.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14
EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 28.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.8.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTBY THE RESPONDENTEXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 6.9.2022 SUBMITTEDBY THE PETITIONERBY THE PETITIONEREXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTBY THE RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-1428.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14
EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 28.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16
EXHIBIT P9TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U/S.272A(1) (D) DATED 25.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2020-21. 25.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2020-21.
RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS:NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A.TO JUDGE
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.