THE MANNARKKAD TALUK GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED P-630 vs. THE ADDL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/16665/2022HC KeralaKLHC01033712202224 May 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) to dispose of the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) within an outer period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The disposal is to be done after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Crucially, the Court clarified that the appeal should be disposed of without insisting on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded. Furthermore, all recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) were ordered to be kept in abeyance until a decision was taken on the appeal. The writ petition was allowed with these directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mannarkkad Taluk Government Employees Co-op Credit Society Limited, claimed a deduction under Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessing officer, by an order dated 28.03.2022, disallowed this claim and issued a demand. The petitioner filed an appeal along with a stay petition before the first respondent (Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi). The appeal was pending. Apprehending coercive recovery steps based on the assessment order, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the early disposal of their appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the early disposal of their appeal pending before the appellate authority? (Question of procedure/direction) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that there were connected matters where the High Court had directed the appellate authority to dispose of appeals concerning Section 80P deductions without insisting on any deposit. They sought a similar direction for their appeal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue's side regarding the disposal of the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 80P(4),Section 143(3)

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 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 16665 OF 2022 PETITIONER: THE MANNARKKAD TALUK GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED P-630 MANNARKKAD P.O., PALAKKAD -678 582, REPRESENTED SECRETARY, UMA.N.V. BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ADDL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI - 110 001. 2 NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI - 110 001, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER. OTHER PRESENT: SC,JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 16665 OF 2022 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J …......….................................. W.P.(C) No. 16665 of 2022 ….................................. Dated this the 24th day of May, 2022

JUDGMENT Petitioner is a co-operative society, who claimed the benefit under Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for short the ‘Act’). By order dated 28.03.2022, the assessing officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act and disallowed the claim and issued a demand.

2.

Challenging the order of assessment, petitioner has preferred an appeal along with stay petition before the first respondent as Ext.P2 and Ext.P3. It is submitted that the appeal is pending consideration. However, apprehending coercive steps that may be initiated, pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order, petitioner seeks for a direction for an early disposal of Ext.P2 appeal.

WP(C) NO. 16665 OF 2022 3 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Adv.Harisankar V.Menon as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents Sri.Jose Joseph.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that there are connected matters in which this Court has already issued directions to the Appellate Authority to dispose of appeals in cases where the deduction under Section 80P of the Act have been sought without insisting on any deposit.

5.

Having regard to the circumstances arising in the case, I am of the view that the appeal filed by the petitioner as Ext.P2 before the first respondent can be directed to be disposed of in accordance with law.

6.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within an outer period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that the appeal shall be disposed of by the 2nd respondent without insisting on WP(C) NO. 16665 OF 2022 4 payment of 20% of the tax demanded. Needless to say, till a decision is taken by the first respondent on the appeal, all recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is allowed as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJM

WP(C) NO. 16665 OF 2022 5

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16665/2022 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS : Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18. Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA 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 →