THE KANJIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. F1199 vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/5838/2021HC KeralaKLHC01015606202108 March 2021Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, considering the pendency of the statutory appeal and stay petition, disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. The 2nd respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) was directed to decide the stay petition filed with the statutory appeal 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, until the disposal of the stay petition, all coercive actions for realizing the amount determined by the assessment order at Ext.P1 were to be kept in abeyance. The petitioner was also directed to furnish a copy of the judgment to the 2nd respondent for necessary action. The court did not decide the merits of the Section 80P claim.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Kanjikode Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is a co-operative society providing credit facilities to its members. It claimed a deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was disallowed by an assessment order (Ext.P1). The petitioner filed a statutory appeal along with a stay petition before the 2nd respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi). While the stay petition was pending, steps were being taken to recover the assessed amount. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking directions regarding the pending appeal and stay petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should intervene in the pending statutory appeal and stay petition before the appellate authority? (Question of procedure and discretion). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that despite filing a statutory appeal and stay petition, coercive steps were being taken to recover the disputed amount, necessitating judicial intervention. The petitioner relied on the pendency of the stay petition as a ground for relief. Revenue's Contention: The revenue opposed the writ petition, submitting that the assessed amount needed to be recovered as there was no stay order in place against the assessment order (Ext.P1). The revenue did not cite any specific authorities or precedents.

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.5838 OF 2021(D) PETITIONER: THE KANJIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F1199, KANJIKODE P.O., KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD-678621, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.RADHAKRISHNAN. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI-110001. 2 NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI-110001, 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. 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.

2.

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. 3. 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 FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 DATED 8.2.2021. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE S.O.NO.3296(E) ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI DATED 25.9.2020. EXHIBIT P2(a) COPY OF THE S.O.NO.3297(E) ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI DATED 25.9.2020. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.2.2021. 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 DATED 16.2.2021. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.3078/2021 DATED 8.2.2021. 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 →