The Chentrappinni Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Thrissur/The Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Thrissur
[Citation -2020-LL-0313-86]
| Citation | 2020-LL-0313-86 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | The Chentrappinni Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. |
| Respondent Name | The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Thrissur/The Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Thrissur |
| Court | HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 13/03/2020 |
| Assessment Year | 2012-13. 2017-18 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | stay petition • demand notice • tax due |
| Bot Summary: | The petitioner preferred Exts.P4 and P10 appeals along with Exts.P6 and P12 stay petitions. The prayer in the writ petition is for expeditious consideration of either the appeals or the stay petitions and to stay the recovery proceedings including the insistence to pay 20 of the amount as demanded under Exts.P5 and P11. 2. The issue regarding imposition of the condition of remittance of 20 of the tax demanded was considered and decided by the Division Bench W.P.(C) No.7914 of 2020 3 of this Court and as per the judgment in W.A.No. After taking note of the peculiar aspects involved and the decision of the Full Bench in Mavilayi Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut 2019 KHC 287, the Division Bench held the insistence for payment of 20 of the tax assessed, while the appeal against the assessment order is pending, to be bad. 3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department also. In the light of the Division Bench decision, the demand for remittance of 20 of the tax assessed pending consideration of the appeals, is illegal. The writ petition is therefore disposed of, directing the first respondent to consider Exts.P4 and P10 appeals filed by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible. |