THE MUNDUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
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 is to hear the petitioner before passing orders. Crucially, the Court ordered that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by the assessment order (Ext.P1) and the First Appellate Authority's 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. No specific finding was made on the merits of the Section 80P deduction claim, as the appeal was pending.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Mundur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, is challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed under the Income Tax Act. An appeal to the First Appellate Authority was rejected by Ext.P2 order. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal (Ext.P3) along with a stay petition (Ext.P4) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent). The core of the dispute concerns the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act as it applies to Co-Operative Societies. The petitioner points to previous High Court decisions where similar appeals were directed to be considered by the appellate authority, with recovery proceedings stayed.
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 against the assessment order and the order of the First Appellate Authority, particularly concerning the deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act in relation to Co-Operative Societies? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning Section 80P of the Income Tax Act). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the issue involves the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P for Co-Operative Societies and that the High Court has previously directed appellate authorities to consider such appeals and stay recovery proceedings in similar cases. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel appeared for the respondents, but no specific arguments or reliance on authorities by the revenue are mentioned.
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 WP(C).No.20046 OF 2020(E) 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/28.9.2020
WP(C).No.20046 OF 2020(E) 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 →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026
- Arun Aloysius Barnes vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 14 Oct 2026
