Kerala High Court
Mavilayi Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd vs The Income Tax Officer on 13 October, 2011
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/17TH POUSHA 1934
WP(C).No. 31883 of 2011 (I)
---------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------
MAVILAYI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
NO.C 4683, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
MAVILAYI.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.670 622.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN
SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-I,
OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
KANNUR RANGE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN
KANNUR DISTRICT-670 006.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CIB),
I.S.S.PRESS ROAD, COCHIN
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 018.
3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
4. THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
CO-OPERATION (C) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
R1 & R2 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
R3 & R4 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI MANOJ KUNJACHAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-1-
2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 31883 of 2011
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1: COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 13.10.2011
P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE F.nO.27/142(1)(II)/2011-12 DATED 29.07.2011
P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO. 2536 OF 2009 DATED 24.11.2009
P4: COPY OF THE ORDER IN SLP NO.3976 OF 2010 OF THE SUPREME COURT
P5: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24.08.2011
P6: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 1.9.2011
P7: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE RETURN SUBMITTED FOR THE
ASSESMENT YEAR 2009-2010.
P8: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION F NO.AAAAM8091L/144/2011-12 DATED
3.10.2011.
P9: COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT REQUIRING THE
PETITIONER TO FILE ITS RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008
DATED 12.09.2011.
P10: COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT REQUIRING THE
PETITIONER TO FILE ITS RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009
DATED 12.09.2011
P11: COPY OF NOTICE F NO.ITO(CIB)/CIT/2008-09 DATED 2.2.2009 OF THE
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.)8TH FLOOR, AYAKAR BHAVAN,
NORTH BLOCK, KOZHIKODE.
P12: COPY OF COMMUNICATION F NO.ITO(CIB)CIT/2008-09/1116 DATED
16.03.2009 OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR IF INCOME TAX (INV.) 8TH
FLOOR, AYAKAR BAVAN, NORTH BLOCK, KOZHIKODE.
P13: COPY OF COMMUNICATION F.NO.ITO(CIB)/CIT/2009-2010/292 DATED
10.8.2009 OF THE ASSISSTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.) 8TH
FLOOR, AYAKAR BHAVAN NORTH BLOCK, KOZHIKODE.
P14: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE F. NO.JT. CIT (CIB)CHN/SC/2009-2010
DATED 13.11.2009 OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CIB),
COCHIN.
P15: COPY OF THE NOTICE F NO.ITO (CIB)/CLT/2009-10 DATED 5.2.2010 OF
THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.) 8TH FLOOR, AYAKAR
BHAVAN, NORTH BLOCK KOZHIKODE.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
R1(A): COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S142(1) DATED 28.02.2011.
/TRUE COPY/
SKV P.A TO JUDGE
ANTONY DOMINIC,J
--------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.31883 of 2011
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of January, 2013
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is a Co-operative Society. They approached this Court challenging Exts.P2, P6 and P8. Ext.P2 is a notice under Section 142 of the Income Tax Act. For its non-compliance, Ext.P6 penalty notice was issued and by Ext.P8, the petitioner was informed that its return cannot be accepted. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is filed.
2. This Court passed interim order dated 06.12.2011, admitting the writ petition and directing the petitioner to furnish details regarding the income as sought for in Ext.P2 without disclosing the names and addresses of customers of the petitioner. It was also ordered that based on the information so furnished, the Assessing Officer may complete the assessment. Petitioner says that information was furnished and rejecting the same, W.P.(C).No.31883 of 2011 : 2 : assessment was completed. It is also stated that they have already filed an appeal before the statutory authorities to challenging the assessment orders. Now that the appellate authority is seized of the appeal filed by the petitioner, it is unnecessary for this Court to go into the merits of the contentions raised.
Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the appellate authority will pass orders on the appeal and that the contentions raised in this writ petition are left open.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ln