THE NAGARIPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court directed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent) to consider and pass orders on the appeal filed by the petitioner (Ext.P3) within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Tribunal was also directed to hear the petitioner before passing its orders. 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 such time as 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 3rd respondent for further action. The judgment did not decide the merits of the appeal itself, but rather the procedural aspect of its expeditious disposal and interim relief.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Nagaripuram 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 relies on previous High Court decisions where similar directions were issued to appellate authorities to consider appeals and stay recovery proceedings pending disposal.
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 First Appellate Authority's order. 2. Whether recovery proceedings should be stayed pending the disposal of the appeal by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner contends that the appeal before the Tribunal involves the crucial issue of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act as applicable to Co-Operative Societies. They rely on precedents from the High Court of Kerala where similar directions have been issued to the appellate authorities to decide the appeals and to stay recovery proceedings in the interim. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue's learned Standing Counsel. The court proceeded to pass orders based on the submissions of the petitioner and its own consideration of similar cases.
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 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.19848 OF 2020(E) 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 WP(C).No.19848 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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
