Wp(C)/7240/2020 Of The Arakuzha Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. Income Tax Officer
High Court
10 Mar 2020 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/7240/2020 Of The Arakuzha Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. Income Tax Officer
Date of order
10 Mar 2020
Assessment year(s)
2014-15, 2017-18
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp(C)/7240/2020 Of The Arakuzha Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2020) 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 AMIT RAWAL
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1941
WP(C).No.7240 OF 2020(D)
PETITIONER:
THE ARAKUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. 493,ARAKUZHA P O, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-686672. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.JOJOSRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS:
1INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 AND TPS, INCOME TAX OFFICE, TEMPLE ROAD, THODUPUZHA P O, PIN-685584.
2COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2,OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL REVENUE TOWER, KOCHI-682018.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON10.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking adirection to dispose of Exts.P3 and P6 appeals preferredbefore the second respondent/Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals) against the assessment orders Exts.P1 andP4.
2.Having heard the learned counsel on both sides,the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to thesecond respondent to take a decision on Exts.P3 and P6appeals in accordance with law, after affording anopportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period ofthree months from the date of receipt of a copy of thisjudgment without insisting on payment of 20% of the taxdemanded, as per circular of 2017. Till such time adecision is taken on the appeal, recovery proceedingspursuant to the assessment orders shall be kept inabeyance.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1
A TRUE COPY OF THE RE ASSESSMENT ORDERFOR AY 2014-15 DATED 09.05.2019 BY THE1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2
A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S. 156 DATED 19.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.156 DATED 19.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3
A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL AY 2014-15 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06.03.2020.
EXHIBIT P4
A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2017-18 DATED 17.12.2019 ISSUEDBY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5
A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S. 156 DATED 17.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.156 DATED 17.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6
A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR 1Y 2017-18 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.01.2020.18 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.01.2020.
EXHIBIT P7
A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 11.02.2020 FOR 20% OF TAX FOR AY2014-15 AND 2017-18 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.DATED 11.02.2020 FOR 20% OF TAX FOR AY2014-15 AND 2017-18 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8
A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 23.10.2019 FOR 20% OF TAX FOR AY2014-15 AND 2018-19 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.DATED 23.10.2019 FOR 20% OF TAX FOR AY2014-15 AND 2018-19 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
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.