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

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/5839/2021HC KeralaKLHC01015608202108 March 2021Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, considering the submissions and the pendency of the statutory appeal along with the stay petition, disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. The Court directed the second respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) to decide the stay petition within four months from the date of communication of the judgment. The petitioner was directed to cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the stay petition. Crucially, the Court ordered that all coercive actions for realizing the amount determined by the assessment order at Ext.P1 should be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the stay petition. The petitioner was also directed to furnish a copy of the judgment to the second respondent for necessary action.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Karakurissi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., a co-operative society providing credit facilities, claimed a deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This claim was disallowed by an assessment order (Ext.P1). The petitioner filed a statutory appeal along with a stay petition before the second respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre). While the stay petition was pending, steps were being taken to recover the determined tax liability. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking directions regarding the recovery proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a stay of coercive recovery proceedings pending the disposal of their statutory appeal and stay petition before the National Faceless Appeal Centre, concerning the disallowance of their claim under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that coercive steps are being taken to recover the disputed amount while their statutory appeal and stay petition are pending, and sought a stay on these recovery actions. The petitioner relied on the pendency of the appeal and stay petition as grounds for relief. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the amount determined needs to be recovered, and there is no stay order in place against the assessment order (Ext.P1).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P(2)(a)(i)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1942 WP(C).No.5839 OF 2021(D) PETITIONER: THE KARAKURISSI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. KARAKURISSI, PALAKKAD 678 595, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, A.JAYASREE BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.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. OTHER PRESENT: SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Dated this the 8th day of March 2021 Heard both sides.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a co-operative society carrying on business of providing credit facility to its members. The petitioner has claimed the benefit under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. But the same came to be disallowed by the order at Ext.P1. Hence the petitioner has filed appeal along with stay petition before the 2nd respondent. However, during the pendency of the stay petition, steps are being taken to realise the amount so determined.

3.

Learned Standing Counsel, who takes notice for the Income Tax Department, opposed the writ petition by submitting that the amount determined needs to be recovered without there being any stay to the assessment order at Ext.P1. 4. Having considered the submissions so advanced, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as statutory appeal along with stay petition is pending, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

The 2nd respondent is directed to decide the stay petition filed with the statutory appeal within a period of four months from the date of communication of this judgment. The petitioner to co-operate the 2nd respondent in expeditious disposal of the stay petition. Till disposal of the stay petition, all coercive action taken for realising the amount determined by the assessment order at Ext.P1 should be kept in abeyance. The petitioner to furnish copy of the judgment to the 2nd respondent for necessary action. A.M.BADAR JUDGE smp

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE S.O.NO.3296(E) ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI EXHIBIT P2 (a) COPY OF THE S.O.NO.3297(E) ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 (a) COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP (C) NO.3078/2021 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. True Copy P.S to Judge smp

More judgments on Section 80P(2)(a)(i)

All 2,347 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P(2)(a)(i) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →