Wp(C)/8645/2015 Of Edarikode Service Co Operative Bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/27TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 8645 of 2015 (E) --------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- EDARIKODE SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.10739, EDARIKODE.P.O., MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.3, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 505. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALI, CG THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: mbr/ WP(C).No. 8645 of 2015 (E) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------ EXHIBIT P1 :COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR 2009-10. EXHIBIT P2 :COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR 2010-11. EXHIBIT P3 :COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR 2011-12. EXHIBIT P4 :COPY OF THE APPEAL ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. EXHIBIT P5 :COPY OF THE APPEAL ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. EXHIBIT P6 :COPY OF THE APPEAL ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. EXHIBIT P7 :COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. EXHIBIT P8 :COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11.EXHIBIT P9 :COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12.EXHIBIT P9 :COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. EXHIBIT P10 : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 18.2.2015. EXHIBIT P11 : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 5.3.2015. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-NIL-------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE mbr/ A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................................ W.P.(C).No.8645 of 2015 ......................................................... Dated this the 18[th] day of March, 2015 J U D G M E N T Against Exts.P1 to P3 assessment orders under the IncomeTax Act, the petitioner has preferred Exts.P4 to P6 appeals andExts.P7 to P9 stay petitions before the 2[nd] respondent. The 2[nd]respondent thereafter considered the stay petitions and passedExt.P11 order, rejecting the stay petitions by relying on certaindecisions. On a perusal of Ext.P11 order, however, it is seen thatthere is no discussion with regard to the issues raised by thepetitioner in the appeals filed before the 2[nd] respondent, or aconsideration of the financial hardship that is faced by thepetitioner. It is also pointed out that there was no notice issued tothe petitioner prior to passing of Ext.P11 order and the petitionerwas also not heard in the matter. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner andthe learned Standing counsel for the respondents. 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of thecase as also the submissions made across the bar, I find that inExt.P11 order of the 2[nd] respondent, there is no consideration of 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner andthe learned Standing counsel for the respondents. 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of thecase as also the submissions made across the bar, I find that inExt.P11 order of the 2[nd] respondent, there is no consideration of the merits of the petitioner's case or the issue of financial hardshipthat was raised by the petitioner. It is also evident that thepetitioner was not put on notice before considering the matter andhe was also not afforded a personal hearing. In that view of thematter, Ext.P11 order is vitiated by a non-compliance with theprinciple of natural justice. Thus, I quash Exts.P11 and direct the2[nd] respondent to reconsider the stay petitions filed by thepetitioner after providing him with an opportunity of being heard.The 2[nd] respondent shall pass fresh orders on the stay petitionswithin a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis judgment. The petitioner shall appear before the 2[nd]respondent at 11 am on 07.04.2015 for a hearing before the 2[nd]respondent. I make it clear that, till orders are passed as directed,by the 2[nd] respondent and communicated to the petitioner.Recovery steps pursuant to Ext.P10 shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition disposed as above. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE