THE SREEKRISHNAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. F1213 vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/20172/2020HC KeralaKLHC01050807202029 September 2020Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

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 the judgment. The Tribunal was also directed to hear the petitioner before passing the order. Crucially, the Court ordered that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Exts.P1 and P2 orders shall be kept in abeyance until such time as the Tribunal passes its order and communicates it to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish a copy of the judgment and the writ petition to the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Sreekrishnapuram Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner was aggrieved by an assessment order (Ext.P1) and a subsequent order from the First Appellate Authority (Ext.P2) which rejected their appeal. The petitioner had filed a further appeal (Ext.P3) along with a stay petition (Ext.P4) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent). The core issue pertains to the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act concerning Co-Operative Societies. The petitioner sought a direction for the Tribunal to decide the appeal and a stay on recovery proceedings.

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 against the assessment and appellate orders concerning deductions under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, and grant a stay on recovery proceedings pending disposal of the appeal? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue involved is the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act in its application to Co-Operative Societies. They relied on previous instances where this Court had directed appellate authorities to consider appeals and granted stays on recovery proceedings in similar matters. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel appeared for the respondents, but it does not explicitly detail their arguments on the merits of the case or the stay petition.

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 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 7TH ASWINA, 1942 WP(C).No.20172 OF 2020(V) PETITIONER/S: THE SREEKRISHNAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. F1213 SREEKRISHNAPURAM P.O, PALAKKAD 679 513, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ULLAS KUMAR C BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD 678 014. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THRISSUR 680 021 3 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KAKKANADU, KOCHI 682 030, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. OTHER PRESENT: SRI.JOSE JOSEPH,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.20172 OF 2020(V) 2

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority but the same was rejected by Ext.P2 order. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 appeal along with Ext.P4 stay petition before the 3rd respondent. It is the contention of the learned counsel for 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 the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar and the 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

WP(C).No.20172 OF 2020(V) 3 against the petitioner by Exts.P1 and P2 orders 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.20172 OF 2020(V) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT 2014-15 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →