THE KADANNAMANNA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/26606/2020HC KeralaKLHC01065924202001 December 2020Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P3) within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also directed that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance until such time as orders are passed by the 3rd respondent and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner is required to produce a copy of the writ petition and the judgment before the 3rd respondent for further action. The judgment does not record a decision on the merits of the Section 80P deduction issue itself, but rather addresses the procedural aspect of expediting the appeal and staying recovery.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Kadannama Service Co-operative Bank, is aggrieved by an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed under the Income Tax Act. Their appeal before the first appellate authority was dismissed via Ext.P2. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a further appeal (Ext.P3) along with a stay petition (Ext.P4) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent). The core issue in the appeal pertains to the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act in its application to Co-operative Societies. The petitioner notes that in similar cases, the High Court has directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal within a timeframe and to keep recovery proceedings in abeyance.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act is permissible for Co-operative Societies. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argues that the issue involves the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act concerning Co-operative Societies. They rely on the practice of this Court in similar matters where directions were issued to the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal within a time frame and to stay recovery proceedings pending disposal of the appeal. Revenue's Contentions: No specific contentions are recorded for the revenue in the provided judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942 WP(C).No.26606 OF 2020(A) PETITIONER: THE KADANNAMANNA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK NO. 10561, KADANNAMANNA P.O, MANAKADA VIA, MALAPPURAM - 679324, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001, 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (4), TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676001. 3 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682037. BY ADV.SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.26606 OF 2020(A) 2

JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority. The same however came to be dismissed by Ext.P2 order. The petitioner

therefore preferred Ext.P3 appeal together with Ext.P4 stay petition before the 3rd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the issue involved in the appeal is the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act in its application to Co-operative Societies and in similar cases this Court has directed the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal itself within a time frame and to keep in abeyance the recovery proceedings for recovery of amount confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order.

2.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar and taking note of the fact that in similar matters, this Court has directed the Appellate Authority to consider and pass orders in the appeal and stayed the recovery of WP(C).No.26606 OF 2020(A) 3 disputed amounts pending disposal of the appeal, this Writ petition is disposed directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 appeal within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 3rd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the 3rd respondent, for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE mns/01.12.2020

WP(C).No.26606 OF 2020(A) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 16.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2017-18. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 03.10.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOCHIFOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 . EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 18.11.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOCHI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →