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

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/20183/2020HC KeralaKLHC01050841202029 September 2020Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala 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 Court also ordered that recovery steps for amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Exts.P1 and P2 orders shall be kept in abeyance until such time as orders are passed by the Tribunal and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish a copy of the judgment and the writ petition to the Tribunal. The Tribunal was not explicitly asked to decide on the merits of the Section 80P deduction in this order, but rather to expedite the appeal process and maintain the status quo regarding recovery.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Sreekrishnapuram Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., is challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1) and an order of the First Appellate Authority (Ext.P2) that rejected its appeal. The bank 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 concerns the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as applied to Co-Operative Societies. The petitioner contended that similar matters have been decided by the High Court of Kerala, which directed the appellate authority to consider appeals and stayed recovery proceedings pending disposal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court of Kerala should direct the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal against the assessment order and the First Appellate Authority's order, and grant a stay on recovery proceedings pending disposal of the appeal, in light of similar precedents. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the issue involves the deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, applicable to Co-Operative Societies. They relied on previous High Court of Kerala judgments that directed appellate authorities to consider appeals and stayed recovery proceedings in similar cases. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions from the revenue.

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.20183 OF 2020(W) PETITIONER/S: THE SREEKRISHNAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. F1213 SREEKRISHNAPURAM P.O.PALAKKAD-679 523, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ULLAS KUMAR.C. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA 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, AYAKAR 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.20183 OF 2020(W) 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.20183 OF 2020(W) 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.20183 OF 2020(W) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 25.12.2018 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 26.8.2020 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT 2016-17 DATED 19.6.2020 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19.9.2020

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →