THE KODUVAYUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.P 756 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/19900/2020HC KeralaKLHC01050104202025 September 2020Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, while not deciding the merits of the appeal, 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 a copy of 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 question regarding the permissibility of Section 80P deduction for co-operative societies was not decided by the High Court in this order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Koduvayur 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 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 concerns the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act for Co-Operative Societies. The petitioner points to previous High Court orders in similar cases where appellate authorities were directed to decide appeals and recovery proceedings were stayed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act is permissible for Co-Operative Societies? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the issue involved in its appeal is the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act in its application to Co-Operative Societies. They rely on previous High Court judgments that have directed appellate authorities to consider and pass orders on appeals and have stayed recovery proceedings in similar matters. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments 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.19900 OF 2020(J) PETITIONER: THE KODUVAYUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.P 756 KODUVAYUR P O, PALAKKAD- 678521, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY IN CHARGE, SUJEESH K.K. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD - 670014, 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) THRISSUR - 680021. 3 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AYAKAR BHAVAN, KAKKANADU, KOCHI- 682030, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. BY ADV.SRI. 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.19900 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

WP(C).No.19900 OF 2020(J) 3 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

WP(C).No.19900 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 2014-15 DATED 19.12.2016. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 25.08.2020. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT 2014-15 DATED 19.09.2020. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19.09.2020. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →