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

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/19893/2020HC KeralaKLHC01050089202025 September 2020Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, considering the facts and circumstances and the submissions made, and noting that similar cases have resulted in the granting of a stay on recovery proceedings pending disposal of the appeal, disposed of the writ petition. The 3rd respondent (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) was directed 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, recovery steps for the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Exts.P1 and P2 orders were to be kept in abeyance until the Tribunal passed its orders and communicated them to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish copies of the judgment and writ petition to the 3rd respondent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Koduvayur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., is challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner's appeal before the First Appellate Authority was rejected by order Ext.P2. 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 pertains to the deductibility under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act for Co-Operative Societies. The petitioner relies on previous High Court orders where similar appeals were directed to be considered by the appellate authority, with recovery proceedings stayed in the interim.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should be directed to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal against the assessment order and the order of the First Appellate Authority, concerning the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act in its application to Co-Operative Societies? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the issue involves the deductibility under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, a matter that has been subject to consideration in similar cases by this Court. They rely on precedents where the High Court has directed appellate authorities to decide appeals and granted interim stays on recovery. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel appeared for the respondents, but it does not explicitly detail the revenue's arguments or any specific authorities or precedents they relied upon.

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.19893 OF 2020(J) PETITIONER/S: THE KODUVAYUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. P- 756 KODUVAYUR P.O.PALAKKAD-678 521, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE, SUJEESH K.K. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD-670 014. 2 THE COMMISSIONR 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: 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.19893 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.19893 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.19893 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 2015-16 DATED 22.12.2017 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 25.8.2020 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT 2015-16 DATED 19.9.2020 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 →