Wp(C)/8732/2019 Of Pooyappally Service Co-Operative Bank Limited v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2
High Court
21 Mar 2019 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/8732/2019 Of Pooyappally Service Co-Operative Bank Limited v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2
Date of order
21 Mar 2019
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp(C)/8732/2019 Of Pooyappally Service Co-Operative Bank Limited v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2, the High Court (2019) decided the matter.
Decision: The writ petition is disposed of as above.
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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
THURSDAY ,THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1940WP(C).No. 8732 of 2019
PETITIONER/S:
POOYAPPALLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.3964MEEYANNOOR, POOYAPPALLY, P.O. KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691537, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRANSRI.S.SHYAM KUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2,AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, NEAR KARBALA JUNCTION, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOLLAM-691001.
2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.
MM JASMINE GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner filed an appeal againstthe assessment order before the 2[nd] respondent.The petitioner had not moved any stayapplication. The petitioner would submit thatin the light of Ext.P6 judgment of this Court,the petitioner is entitled for realisation ofthe amount and the recovery cannot be resortedto.
2. In the above circumstances, I am ofthe opinion that, if the petitioner moves astay application before the authorityconcerned, within a period of one week from thedate of receipt of a copy of this judgment,the Appellate Authority shall take a decisionon the stay application within a period of twomonths thereafter. Till then, recoveryproceedings, pursuant to the impugned order
shall stand deferred.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
21/03/2019
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OFCLASSIFICATION ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANTREGISTRAR(GENERAL)OFCO-OPERATIVESOCIETIES, KOTTARAKKARA.CLASSIFICATION ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANTREGISTRAR(GENERAL)OFCO-OPERATIVESOCIETIES, KOTTARAKKARA.
EXHIBIT P2A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED26.12.2018.26.12.2018.
EXHIBIT P3A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED26.12.2018.26.12.2018.
EXHIBIT P4A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILEDBEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION226(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DEMANDING THEPETITIONER TO PAY A SUM OF RS.3,34,000/-.226(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DEMANDING THEPETITIONER TO PAY A SUM OF RS.3,34,000/-.
EXHIBIT P6A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2017IN WPC 38566 OF 2017.IN WPC 38566 OF 2017.
RESPONDENTS EXTS: 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.