IN HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/15TH KARTHIKA, 1937 WP(C).No. 33746 of 2015 (P) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- PULAMANTHOLE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F 1565, PULAMANTHOLE P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 679 323, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (4), TIRUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-11-2015, COURT ON SAME DAY DELIVERED FOLLOWING: rs. WP(C).No. 33746 of 2015 (P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1: COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 07/03/2015 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF APPEAL DATED 30/03/2015 FILED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 08/04/2015 FILED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF STAY ORDER DATED 23/08/2014 ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN I.A NO.2573/2014 IN ITA NO.198/2014. P5: COPY OF ORDER DATED 21/09/2015 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. =========================================== W.P.(C). No. 33746 of 2015 ===================================================== Dated this 6th day of November, 2015 JUDGMENT challenge in writ petition is against Ext.P5 order passed by 1st respondent, in appeal preferred by petitioner against assessment order under Income Tax Act. case of petitioner in writ petition is essentially that, while passing Ext.P5 order, 1st respondent did not exercise its discretion validly. It is submitted that main issue involved in appeal is also subject matter of ITA before this Court, in which this Court had granted complete stay against recovery of amounts confirmed against petitioner during pendency of appeal. learned counsel for petitioner would submit that ITA has since been heard and it has been reserved for judgment. It is in meanwhile, that Ext.P5 order has been passed in appeals preferred by petitioner on same issue. 2. On consideration of facts and circumstances of case as also submissions made across bar, I find that in Ext.P5 order, 1st respondent has directed petitioner to deposit entire amount confirmed against him by assessment order, as condition for hearing appeal. Inasmuch as issue involved in appeal preferred by petitioner is pending -2- W.P.(C). No. 33746 of 2015 consideration before this Court in ITAs preferred by petitioner and similarly situated persons, and this Court has granted complete stay against recovery, pending disposal of Income Tax Appeal, I quash Ext.P5 order and direct 1st respondent to consider and pass orders in Ext.P2 appeal preferred by petitioner, within period of three months, after hearing petitioner. I make it clear that, pending disposal of appeal, recovery steps, if any, initiated against petitioner for recovery of amounts confirmed against petitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order, shall be kept in abeyance. petitioner shall produce copy of writ petition, together with copy of this judgment before 1st respondent for further action. writ petition is disposed as above. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE das /06.11.15 PULAMANTHOLE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)/ INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (4), TIRUR