Back
2014 Supreme(Online)(KER) 20054
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
KANJIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD – Appellant
Versus
THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX INTELLIGENCE – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 4043/2014
The Court upheld the interpretation of Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, confirming the petitioners' need for extended compliance time in light of existing legal precedents.
Headnote:
Taxation - Income Tax Act - Section 133(6) - The Court addressed the challenges against notices issued under Section 133(6) and reaffirmed the existing legal stance while granting time for compliance.
Fact of the Case:
Co-operative Societies challenged the notices issued under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act regarding compliance and submitted an alternate relief for extension of time to furnish particulars.
Finding of the Court:
The Court determined that the matter could be resolved by considering the petitioners' request for additional time and confirmed that previous court decisions were upheld, allowing for compliance time.
Issues: Whether the notices under Section 133(6) were sustainable and whether the petitioners could be granted additional time to comply.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court recognized the validity of previous judgments on similar matters and decided to grant one month's time to allow the petitioners to comply with the notices.
Final Decision: The writ petition stands disposed of with a time extension for compliance.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners, who are Co-operative Societies/Banks, functioning in terms of the Co-operative Societies Act/Rules, are before this Court, challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P1 series notices issued by the 1st respondent under Section 133 (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . Various grounds have been raised with regard to the correctness and sustainability of the said proceedings. However, as conceded by the petitioners, the issue stands answered against the persons like the petitioners as per the decision rendered by this Court and the said verdict has been affirmed by the Apex Court on dismissal of the SLPs preferred in this regard by the aggrieved parties, as borne by Ext.P3.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the above facts and circumstances, the petitioners have raised an alternate relief, as borne by prayer No.2, for granting further W.P.C.No.4043 OF 2014 2 time to trace out all the particulars and to have the same furnished. Since, the time granted as per Ext.P1 series notice was only up to 07.02.2014, the petitioners have approached the 1st respondent by filing Ext.P2 series applications for granting some more time as above.
3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the matter could be disposed of, by causing Ext.P2 series to be considered by the 1st respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the particulars sought for by the 1st respondent are in respect of the period of three years and all the relevant records will have to be verified to submit the correct facts and figures and to have full compliance with the requirement in Ext.P1 series of notices. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the financial year is coming to an end by 31.03.2014 and as such, the petitioners have to attend to other day-to-day requirements as well, so as to safeguard the interest of the members/general public, who deal with the Bank.
W.P.C.No.4043 OF 2014 3 After hearing both the sides, this Court finds it fit and proper to grant ‘one month's’ time to the petitioners, so as to satisfy the requirement in Ext.P1.
Subject to this, the writ petition stands disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp
