Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Kerala · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8224 (KER)

INCOME TAX OFFICER v. KADAVALOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 3821

RP/494/2025 · 2025-04-07

A K Jayasankaran Nambiar, Kauser Edappagath

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

RP NO. 494 OF 2025 in WA 1871/2025 1 2025:KER:30293 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RP NO. 494 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.11.2023 IN WA NO.1871 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT IN WA/1ST RESPONDENT IN WPC: INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD I & TPS, INCOME TAX OFFICE, CITY PLAZA, WEST NADA, GURUVAYOOR, PIN - 680101 BY ADVS. SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR SRI.KEERTHIVAS GIRI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT AND 2ND RESPONDENT IN WA/PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT IN WP(C): 1 KADAVALOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 3821 KADAVALOOR P. O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 680543 2 STATE BANK OF INDIA PERUMBILAVU BRANCH, TRIVENI PLAZA, PERUMPILAVU, THRISSUR, PIN - 680519 BY ADVS. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC SMT.G.MONI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RP NO. 494 OF 2025 in WA 1871/2025 2 2025:KER:30293 O R D E R Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. On going through the averments in the Review Petition, we find that it proceeds on a misunderstanding of the terms of the earlier interim order that were made absolute at the time of disposal of the Writ Appeal. Contrary to what is stated in the grounds in the Review Petition, this Court had never held even prima facie that the exercise of power under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act was arbitrary. All that was said was that the manner in which the authorities proceeded Section 226(3) was unfair to the assessee inasmuch as the assessee did not even get a breathing time to respond to the notices issued to him. We do not see how the review petitioner is prejudiced by the said prima facie observations that were subsequently made absolute while disposing the Writ Appeal. The Review Petition therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE mns RP NO. 494 OF 2025 in WA 1871/2025 3 2025:KER:30293 APPENDIX OF RP 494/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 23.06.2023 ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DEMAND NOTICE DATED 18.07.2023 ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 03.08.2023 DIRECTING THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN TO PAY THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT Annexure A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOZHIKODE, DATED 14.08.2023 Annexure A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07.09.2023 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOZHIKODE