Wp(C)/8640/2020 Of Pudukkad Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. Income Tax Officer
High Court
18 Mar 2020 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/8640/2020 Of Pudukkad Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. Income Tax Officer
Date of order
18 Mar 2020
Assessment year(s)
2012-13, 2017-18
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp(C)/8640/2020 Of Pudukkad Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2020) decided the matter.
Decision: 2.Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, thewrit petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2[nd]respondent to take a decision on Exts.P3 and P6 appeals inaccordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing tothe petitioner, within a period of three months from the date ofre...
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
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1941WP(C).No.8640 OF 2020(D)
PETITIONER/S:
PUDUKKAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.580PUDUKKAD P.O. THRISSUR 680 301, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.JOJOSMT.SWATHY S.
RESPONDENT/S:
1INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD 2 (4), THRISSUR AAYAKAR BHAVAN S. NAGAR P.O., THRISSUR 680 001.
SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON18.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction todispose of Exts.P3 and P6 appeals preferred before the 2[nd]respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against theassessment order, Exts.P1 and P4.
2.Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, thewrit petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2[nd]respondent to take a decision on Exts.P3 and P6 appeals inaccordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing tothe petitioner, within a period of three months from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this judgment without insisting on paymentof 20% of the tax demanded, as per circular of 2017. Till suchtime a decision is taken on the appeal, recovery proceedingspursuant to the assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance.
Jm/
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AY 2012-13 DATED 10.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.2012-13 DATED 10.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S 156 DATED 10.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.DATED 10.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2012-13 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.01.2020.BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.01.2020.
EXHIBIT P4
A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2017-18 DATED 10.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.2017-18 DATED 10.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S 156 DATED 10.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.DATED 10.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2017-18 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06.01.2020.BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06.01.2020.
EXHIBIT P7A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1STRESPONDENT DATED 14.02.2020 FOR 20% OF TAX.RESPONDENT DATED 14.02.2020 FOR 20% OF TAX.
EXHIBIT P8A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1STRESPONDENT DATED 14.02.2020 FOR 20% OF TAX FOR AY 2017-18.RESPONDENT DATED 14.02.2020 FOR 20% OF TAX FOR AY 2017-18.
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.