Wp(C)/3801/2018 Of The Thanchinganadam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 16TH MAGHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 3801 of 2018 ------------------ PETITIONER------------ THE THANCHINGANADAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 10152, THACHINGANADAM PO, PATTIKKAD (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, 679325, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BY ADV.SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS:------------------ 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE 6730012. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD (4), TIRUR 676001 BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sdr/- WP(C).No. 3801 of 2018 (A) --------------------------- APPENDIX------------- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ...................................................... W.P.(C).No.3801 of 2018 ...................................................... Dated this the 5[th] day of February, 2018 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act1961(the Act) on the rolls of the second respondent. The selfassessment made by the petitioner for the year 2015-2016has been revised by the second respondent under Section143(3) of the Act in terms of Ext.P1 order. Petitionerchallenged Ext.P1 order in appeal before the first respondent.Ext.P2 is the appeal. Ext.P3 is the application for staypreferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2 appeal. The grievance ofthe petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on thepart of the first respondent in taking a decision on Ext.P3application for stay. It is pointed out that an identical matterhas been disposed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal infavour of the assessee, in terms Ext.P4 order. The petitioner,therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in thiswrit petition. W.P.(C).No.3801 of 2018 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner asalso the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3.Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directingthe first respondent to take a decision on Ext.P3 application forstay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2 appeal, within threemonths from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.Ordered accordingly. Needless to say that in the matter ofcomplying with the direction aforesaid, Ext.P4 order of theTribunal shall also be adverted to. Needless also to say thatuntil orders are passed as directed above, further proceedingsfor realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 order shall bedeferred. hmh Sd/-P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE