THE PULAMANTHOLE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. F 1565 vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/26207/2020HC KeralaKLHC01064958202026 November 2020Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent) 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, after hearing the petitioner. The Court also directed that recovery steps for amounts confirmed against the petitioner by the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance until orders are passed by the Tribunal and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish a copy of the judgment and the writ petition to the Tribunal. The principle established is that the High Court can direct expeditious disposal of appeals and grant interim stay of recovery in appropriate cases, especially when similar precedents exist.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Pulamanthole Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The challenge was against Ext.P2, a First Appellate Order under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner had preferred an appeal (Ext.P3) along with a stay petition (Ext.P4) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent). The core issue in the appeal concerned the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act concerning Co-Operative Societies. The petitioner highlighted that the High Court had previously directed appellate authorities to consider and pass orders in similar matters and had stayed recovery proceedings pending disposal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal within a specified timeframe, and grant a stay on recovery proceedings pending the appeal's disposal? (Question of procedure and interim relief) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that in similar cases, the High Court has directed the appellate authority to consider appeals and has granted a stay on recovery proceedings. They relied on the practice of the High Court in such matters. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents appeared, but no specific arguments or reliance on authorities by the revenue are mentioned.

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 THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942 WP(C).No.26207 OF 2020(A) PETITIONER/S: THE PULAMANTHOLE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. F 1565 PULAMANTHOLE P.O,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, 679 323, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE-673 001 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (4), TIRUR 676 001 3 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 037 OTHER PRESENT: GP: DR.THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.26207 OF 2020(A) 2

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P2 First Appellate Order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 appeal along 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. It is pointed out that in similar matters this Court has directed the appellate authority to consider and pass orders in the appeal and stayed the recovery proceedings, in the meanwhile.

2.

I have heard Sri.O.D.Sivadas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also Sri. Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar and finding that in similar cases this Court has granted stay of recovery proceedings, pending disposal of the appeal by the appellate authority, I dispose the writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 appeal preferred by the petitioner within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. I also make it clear that till such time as orders are passed by the 3rd respondent in the appeal as directed above and the orders communicated to the petitioner, recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment together with a copy of the writ petition before the 3rd respondent for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE WP(C).No.26207 OF 2020(A) 3

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 17.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 03.10.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPEALLATE TRIBUNAL, KOCHI EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 18.11.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPEALLATE TRIBUNAL, KOCHI.

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →