THE MANNARKKAD TALUK CO-OP. EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO. P 629 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/20529/2020HC KeralaKLHC01051595202001 October 2020Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, considering the facts and circumstances and the submissions, disposed of the writ petition. It directed 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 Court also clarified that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Exts.P1 and P2 orders 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 specific merits of the Section 80P deduction claim were not decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mannarkkad Taluk Co-Op. Employees Co-Operative Society Ltd., is challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1) and an order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (Ext.P2) which rejected their appeal. The society then filed a further appeal (Ext.P3) along with a stay petition (Ext.P4) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent). The core issue revolves around the deductibility under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act for co-operative societies. The petitioner points to previous High Court orders in similar cases where appeals were directed to be considered and recovery proceedings stayed pending disposal.

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, and if so, within what timeframe? 2. Whether recovery proceedings against the petitioner should be stayed pending the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the issue in their appeal concerns the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act in its application to Co-Operative Societies. They rely on High Court precedents where similar directions were issued to appellate authorities to consider appeals and grant stays on recovery. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue's side regarding the stay or the directions to the Tribunal.

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.20529 OF 2020(M) PETITIONER/S: THE MANNARKKAD TALUK CO-OP. EMPLOYEES CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO. P 629 MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD-678 582,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.K.MOHANDAS. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENT/S: 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. OTHER PRESENT: SC: JOSE JOSEPH FOR RESPONDENTS 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.20529 OF 2020(M) 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 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 DG

WP(C).No.20529 OF 2020(M) 3

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