COCHIN NAVAL BASECIVILIANEMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.4146 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/36879/2022HC KeralaKLHC01079212202222 November 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala did not decide the merits of the appeal. Instead, it directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P3) expeditiously, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also ordered that no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the disposal of the appeal. The principle derived is that when an appeal is pending before the appellate authority and a relevant Supreme Court judgment has been pronounced, the appellate authority should consider the appeal in a time-bound manner, and interim relief against coercive steps may be granted.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Cochin Naval Base Civilian Employees Co-operative Society Ltd. No. 4146, is challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1) issued by the Income Tax Officer. The assessment order rejected the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, citing a lack of evidence to satisfy the provision's ingredients. The petitioner had filed an appeal (Ext.P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), arguing that the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax; 2021 (1) KLT 485 now governs the field and renders the assessment incorrect. The High Court of Kerala was considering a writ petition filed by the petitioner.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order rejecting the deduction under Section 80P is sustainable in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax; 2021 (1) KLT 485. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the assessment order is incorrect because the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax; 2021 (1) KLT 485 governs the present case and supports their claim for deduction under Section 80P. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding this issue.

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 GOPINATH P. TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 36879 OF 2022 PETITIONER COCHIN NAVAL BASE CIVILIANEMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.4146 NAVAL BASE, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682004 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE BY ADV C.A.JOJO RESPONDENTS 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(4)& TPS, KOCHI, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING KOCHI - 682018 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. OTHER PRESENT: ADV. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 36879/2022 2

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Ext.P1 order of assessment was issued against the petitioner. In the assessment order, petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P was rejected on the ground that there was no evidence to show that petitioner satisfied the ingredients of the provision.

2.

While assailing the assessment order before the 3rd respondent, petitioner has sought to canvass that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax; 2021 (1) KLT 485 now governs the field thereby rendering the assessment itself as incorrect.

3.

Since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal as Ext.P3 and the same is pending consideration before the 3rd respondent and considering the order issued in similar circumstances, I deem it fit that this writ petition be disposed of directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider the appeal in a time bound manner.

WP(C) NO. 36879/2022 3

4.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3, as expeditiously as possible within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

.

5.

Till the disposal of the appeal, no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Exts.P1. The writ petition is disposed of as above. GOPINATH P. JUDGE Mrcs

WP(C) NO. 36879/2022 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2020-21 DATED 21.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S 156 DATED 21.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2021- 22 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.10.2022 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY 2021-22 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10.11.2022 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.33658 OF 2022 DATED 25.10.2022 WP(C) NO. 36879/2022 5

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →