Wp(C)/9982/2019 Of Tanalur Service Co-Operative Bank Limited v. The Income Tax Officer
High Court
29 Mar 2019 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/9982/2019 Of Tanalur Service Co-Operative Bank Limited v. The Income Tax Officer
Date of order
29 Mar 2019
Assessment year(s)
2016-17
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp(C)/9982/2019 Of Tanalur Service Co-Operative Bank Limited v. The Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2019) 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 S.V.BHATTI
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 8TH CHAITHRA, 1941
WP(C).No. 9982 of 2019
PETITIONER:
TANALUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,NO.M2, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY IN CHARGE SAJEEV P.K., AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. GOPINATHAN NAIR K., PURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676307.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.JOJOSRI.JACOB CHACKOSRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS:1THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, TIRUR TOWN HALL ROAD, TIRUR-676101.
2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673001.
3THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,C.R. BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682018.
4THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673001.
5THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,MALAPPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, MALAPPURAM POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676307.
OTHER PRESENT:
SC SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON29.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.C.A.Jojo, the learned counsel for the petitioner andSri.Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel for therespondents.
2. The petitioner prays for a direction to the second respondent toconsider and dispose of Ext.P3 appeal and Ext.P4 stay petitionexpeditiously.
3. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the writ petitionis disposed of directing the second respondent to consider and dispose ofExt.P4 stay petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within threemonths and Ext.P3 appeal within six months from the date of receipt of acopy of this judgment.
Recovery proceedings pursuant to the orders under appeal beforethe second respondent are stayed for three months from today.
Sd/-
S.V.BHATTI
JUDGE
Css/
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1
TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2016-17 DATED 19/12/2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.2016-17 DATED 19/12/2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR RS. 96,67,197/- DATED 19/12/2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.96,67,197/- DATED 19/12/2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2016-17 DATED 17/01/2019 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.DATED 17/01/2019 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY 2016-17 DATED 22/01/2019 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.17 DATED 22/01/2019 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 21/03/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.21/03/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE PAYMENT RECEIPT DATED 15/03/2019 FOR AY 2016-17.15/03/2019 FOR AY 2016-17.
EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S. 226(3) DATED 28/03/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.28/03/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH 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.