THE SREEKRISHNAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. F1213 vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
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 appeal (Ext.P3) filed by the petitioner within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Tribunal was also directed to hear the petitioner before passing the order. Furthermore, the Court made it clear that until such time as orders are passed by the Tribunal and communicated to the petitioner, recovery steps for the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Exts.P1 and P2 orders shall be kept in abeyance. The petitioner was instructed to furnish a copy of the judgment and the writ petition to the 3rd respondent for further action. The core principle is to ensure timely disposal of appeals by the Tribunal while providing interim relief against recovery.
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 for 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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should be directed to consider and pass orders on the appeal filed by the petitioner concerning the deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, and if so, within what timeframe? 2. Whether recovery proceedings for the amounts confirmed by the assessment order and the First Appellate Authority's order should be stayed pending the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal? Assessee's contentions: 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 similar matters where the High Court had directed the appellate authority to consider and pass orders on appeals and had stayed recovery proceedings in the interim. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel appeared for the respondents, but no specific arguments were detailed for the revenue.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
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.
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 against the petitioner by Exts.P1 and P2 orders shall be kept in abeyance. The WP(C).No.20163 OF 2020(U) 3 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 SJ
WP(C).No.20163 OF 2020(U) 4
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
More judgments on Section 80P
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Duddukuru Primary Agricultural Cooperative… vs ITO, Ward - 1, TadepalligudemITA 258/VIZ/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- Jijamata Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari… vs ITO Ward -1, BhandraITA 102/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shri Na vs Ari Khedut Sahkari Society Ltd…ITA 362/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
