THE TATTAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/19897/2020HC KeralaKLHC01050090202025 September 2020Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, considering the facts and circumstances and the submissions made, disposed of the writ petition. The Court directed 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 a copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Crucially, the Court 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 was directed to furnish a copy of the judgment and the writ petition to the Tribunal for further action. No specific finding was made on the merits of the Section 80P deduction claim.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Tattamangalam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., challenged an assessment order (Ext.P1) by filing an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, which was rejected by order Ext.P2. Aggrieved, the petitioner 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 pertains to the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act concerning Co-Operative Societies. The petitioner highlighted that the High Court of Kerala has previously directed appellate authorities to consider appeals and granted stays on recovery proceedings in similar cases.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should consider and pass orders on the appeal filed by the petitioner against the assessment order and the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, concerning the procedural fairness and merits of the appeal under the Income Tax Act). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the issue involved is the permissibility 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 consider appeals and stay recovery proceedings pending disposal. 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

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.19897 OF 2020(J) PETITIONER/S: THE TATTAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO. P. 502, THATTAMANGALAM, PALAKKAD - 678012, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, JYOTHI .K, BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD - 678014, 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THRISSUR - 680021, 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.19897 OF 2020(J) 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.19897 OF 2020(J) 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 SJ

WP(C).No.19897 OF 2020(J) 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 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT - 2016-17. 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 →