Kakkoor Service Co-operative Bank Vs. Joint Director of Income Tax (Intelligence)

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Registry has noted a defect in respect of the appeal stating that the petitioner had filed only a single appeal against the order which covered a period of three assessment years – held, the order which is a single order of penalty, the petitioner need have filed only a single appeal before the appellate Tribunal.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

W.P.(C).No.1272 Of 2016

Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2016

PETITIONER

THE KAKKOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.

BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH

RESPONDENT(S)

1. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE), K.K.TOWERS, 5TH FLOOR, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) – III, KOCHI, PANANPILLY NAGAR – 682 016.

3. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. REGISTRAR, KAKKANAD POST, ERNAKULAM.

BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

J U D G M E N T

The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P5 order of the 3rd respondent Tribunal whereby the said Tribunal has dismissed an appeal preferred by the petitioner against Ext.P2 order of the 2nd respondent. In Ext.P5 order, the 3rd respondent Tribunal has found that the Registry has noted a defect in respect of the appeal preferred by the petitioner before it, stating that the petitioner had filed only a single appeal against Ext.P2 order which covered a period of three assessment years namely assessment years 2011-2012 to 2013-2014. The Registry was of the view that the petitioner needed to file three appeals in respect of each of the assessment years that were covered by Ext.P2 order of the 2nd respondent. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that inasmuch as the appeal before the 3rd respondent Tribunal was preferred only against a single order passed by the 2nd respondent, irrespective of the fact that it covered a period of three assessment years, the requirement in law was only to file a single appeal before the 3rd respondent Tribunal.

2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also the learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that against Ext.P2 order of the 2nd respondent, which is a single order of penalty, the petitioner need have filed only a single appeal before the 3rd respondent appellate Tribunal. The learned Standing counsel for the respondents has not brought to my notice any provisions under the rules which would require me to hold to the contrary. It is also observed that Ext.P8 order, against which the petitioner had approached the 2nd respondent through an appeal, itself imposed a penalty only for the period from 28.05.2014 to 19.09.2014. On an overall consideration of the matter, I am convinced that the petitioner need have filed only one appeal, against Ext.P2 order of the 2 nd respondent which dismissed his appeal against an order of penalty that was passed against him by the 1 st respondent. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P5 order and direct the 3 rd respondent Tribunal to restore the appeal preferred by the petitioner on file, if it is otherwise in order, and proceed to here the matter on merits.

The writ petition disposed as above.