THE KARIMKUNNAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.2670, vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/28936/2021HC KeralaKLHC01072017202115 December 2021Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala directed the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The Court further ordered a stay of all further recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order until such time as orders are passed on the appeal. The reasoning for the direction was based on the petitioner's grievance regarding the non-disposal of their statutory appeal and the apprehension of coercive steps. The principle established is that appellate authorities should dispose of pending appeals within a reasonable timeframe, and interim relief in the form of a stay on recovery can be granted pending such disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Karimkunnnam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, had its claim for deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act rejected by an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the 1st respondent (Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre). The petitioner filed a statutory appeal (Ext.P2) before the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre). The petitioner's grievance is that the statutory appeal has not yet been disposed of, and they apprehend coercive steps based on the assessment order. The writ petition was filed seeking a direction for the disposal of the pending appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 2nd respondent should be directed to dispose of the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner against the assessment order. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that their claim for deduction under Section 80P was rejected by the assessment order and that their statutory appeal against this order has not been disposed of. They further contended that they apprehend coercive recovery steps pursuant to the assessment order and therefore seek a direction for the timely disposal of their appeal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department was heard. No specific arguments or contentions were recorded for the revenue in this judgment.

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 MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 28936 OF 2021 PETITIONER/S: THE KARIMKUNNAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. 2670 IX/73, KARIMKUNNAM SCB BUILDING, PALA ROAD, KARIMKUNNAM P.O, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI -685586 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEENA SEBASTIAN BY ADV S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, NEW DELHI-110003 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001 SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 28936 OF 2021 2

J U D G M E N T The claim of the petitioner for deduction under Section 80 P of the Income Tax Act has been rejected by Ext.P1 assessment order. Against Ext.P1 assessment order passed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 statutory appeal before the 2nd respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that the statutory appeal is not so far disposed of and the petitioner apprehends coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order. The limited prayer of the petitioner is for direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal against Ext.P1 assessment order.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department.

3.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders

WP(C) NO. 28936 OF 2021 3 on Ext.P2 appeal within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. Till such time the orders are passed, there will be a stay of all further recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE LU

WP(C) NO. 28936 OF 2021 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28936/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26.02.2021 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S.143(3A) & 143 (3B) OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2018-19 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR THE AY 2018-19. // 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 →