THE MANNARKKAD TALUK GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/20518/2020HC KeralaKLHC01051649202001 October 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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent) to consider and pass orders on the appeal (Ext.P3) filed by the petitioner within six months from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment. This direction is to be followed after hearing the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court explicitly stated that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by the assessment order (Ext.P1) and the appellate order (Ext.P2) shall be kept in abeyance until the Tribunal passes its orders and communicates them to the petitioner. The petitioner is required to furnish a copy of the judgment and the writ petition to the Tribunal for further action. The High Court did not decide the merits of the appeal concerning Section 80P.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mannarkkad Taluk Government Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner was aggrieved by an assessment order (Ext.P1) and a subsequent order of 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 in the appeal pertained to 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 decide similar appeals and granted stays 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 order and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order. (Question of procedure turning on the High Court's writ jurisdiction). Assessee's Contentions: - The petitioner argued that the appeal before the Tribunal concerns the crucial issue of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act for co-operative societies. - They relied on previous High Court judgments where similar directions were issued to appellate authorities to decide appeals and stay recovery proceedings pending disposal. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions made by the respondents (Income Tax Officer, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal). - The learned Standing Counsel appeared for the respondents, but their arguments are not detailed in the 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 THURSDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 9TH ASWINA, 1942 WP(C).No.20518 OF 2020(L) PETITIONER: THE MANNARKKAD TALUK GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED P-630 MANNARKKAD P.O, PALAKKAD 678 582, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, UMA N.V. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD 678 014 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THRISSUR 680 021 3 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KAKKANADU, KOCHI 682 030, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. BY ADV.SRI.JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.20518 OF 2020(L) 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 WP(C).No.20518 OF 2020(L) 3 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 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 mns

WP(C).No.20518 OF 2020(L) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-2018 DATED 26.12.2019 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DATED 15.09.2020 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT 2017-18 DATED 26.09.2020 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 26.09.2020. 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 →