THE PALAKKAD TALUK GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.P758 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/19905/2020HC KeralaKLHC01050108202025 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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P3) within six months from the date of receiving the judgment. The Court also ordered 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 order and communicates it 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 by the High Court, as the matter was remanded for consideration by the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Palakkad Taluk Government Employees Co-Operative Society Limited, is challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1) under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner's appeal before 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 issue concerns the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act as applied to Co-Operative Societies. The petitioner relies on previous High Court directives in similar cases where appellate authorities were instructed to consider appeals and recovery proceedings were stayed pending disposal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal against the rejection of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, and in the interim, stay recovery proceedings. Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argues that the appeal involves the crucial issue of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act for co-operative societies. They cite precedents where the High Court has directed appellate authorities to decide such appeals and granted interim stays on recovery. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by 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 FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 3RD ASWINA, 1942 WP(C).No.19905 OF 2020(K) PETITIONER/S: THE PALAKKAD TALUK GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.P758 CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, SOBHANA.P.K. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD-670014. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THRISSUR-680012. 3 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KAKKANADU, KOCHI-682030, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. OTHER PRESENT: SC: JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.19905 OF 2020(K) 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 WP(C).No.19905 OF 2020(K) 3 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 SJ

WP(C).No.19905 OF 2020(K) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX PALAKKAD RANGE FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 DATED 31.03.2015. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 DATED 25.08.2020. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT 2012-2013 DATED 19.09.2020. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19.09.2020.

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →