THE TATTAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., vs. THE ADDITIONAL /JOINT /DEPUTY /ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/14954/2021HC KeralaKLHC01039993202120 October 2021Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition to the limited extent of directing the competent Authority to take up the statutory appeal (Ext.P3) and dispose of it after following due procedure. The Court emphasized that this should be done as expeditiously as possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also directed that all further action pursuant to the Assessment Order (Ext.P1) would stand deferred until the appeal is disposed of and the resultant order is communicated to the petitioner. The reasoning was based on the fact that Ext.P3 is a statutory appeal that requires decision by the competent authority before further action can be taken, especially considering the interpretation of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which has been subject to various judicial pronouncements.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Tattamangalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging proceedings initiated against them (Ext.P1 Assessment Order). They had already filed a statutory appeal (Ext.P3) and a stay application (Ext.P4) against this order. The petitioner sought a direction for the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal within a stipulated time and to defer further action based on the assessment order until then. The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Department, agreed that the appeal should be decided under the Faceless Scheme without avoidable delay. The High Court considered the submissions and the fact that the appeal involved interpretation of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the competent appellate authority to take up and dispose of the statutory appeal (Ext.P3) filed by the petitioner within a specific timeframe? (Question of procedure and timely disposal). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that they have filed a statutory appeal and stay application and sought a direction for its expeditious disposal and deferment of further action based on the assessment order until then. Revenue's Contention: The revenue agreed that the appeal should be decided under the Faceless Scheme without avoidable delay and prayed that the writ petition be ordered on such terms. They did not oppose the prayer for timely disposal of the appeal.

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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 28TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 14954 OF 2021 PETITIONER: THE TATTAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.P502, TATTAMANGALAM, PALAKKAD - 678 012, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.JYOTHI. BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ADDITIONAL/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. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 001. BY ADV.SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX SRI.NAVANEETH N.NATH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 14954 OF 2021 -2-

JUDGMENT The petitioner, which is a Co-operative Bank operating under the provisions of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, 1969, has approached this Court, impugning Ext.P1 proceedings initiated against them, asserting that they have already preferred Ext.P3 statutory appeal and Ext.P4 stay application against the same before the competent Authority.

2.

The petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext.P3 appeal be directed to be taken up and disposed of by the said appellate Authority, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court and that all further action pursuant to Ext.P1 Assessment Order be ordered to be deferred until such time.

3.

The afore submissions of Smt.K.Krishna – learned counsel for the petitioner, were answered

WP(C) NO. 14954 OF 2021 -3- by Sri.Navneeth N. Nath – learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, saying that, since Ext.P3 appeal will have to be decided under the Faceless Scheme, this Court may allow the competent Authority to deal with it in terms of law.

4.

Sri.Navneeth N.Nath also affirmed that Ext.P3 appeal can itself be decided by the competent Authority without any avoidable delay. He thus prayed that this writ petition be ordered on such terms.

5.

When I evaluate the afore submissions, there can be no doubt that Ext.P3 is a statutory appeal and that it will certainly require to be decided by the competent Authority, before any further action based on Ext.P1 Assessment Order can be taken forward. This is more so because the issue involves interpretation of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which has already been dealt with by various judgments of this Court and WP(C) NO. 14954 OF 2021 -4- that of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Resultantly, I allow this writ petition, to the limited extent of directing the competent Authority to take up Ext.P3 appeal itself and dispose of the same, after following due procedure; thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, until such time as Ext.P3 appeal is disposed of and the resultant order communicated to the petitioner, all further action pursuant to Ext.P1 Assessment Order will stand deferred. DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv

WP(C) NO. 14954 OF 2021 -5-

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14954/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2018-19. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF WEB PAGE SCREEN SHOT EVIDENCING THE INABILITY TO FILE THE APPEAL. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF COVERING LETTER OF THE PETITIONER'S CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.9007/2021. RESPONDENT'S/S 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 →