BHARANIKAVU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.829 vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/9089/2020HC KeralaKLHC01023158202006 August 2020Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 1st respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P3) within an outer time limit of six months. The Court further directed that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance until the 1st respondent passes an order and communicates it to the petitioner. This decision is based on the Court's practice in similar matters where it has directed appellate authorities to decide appeals promptly and stayed recovery pending disposal. The Court did not decide the merits of the disallowance under Section 80P.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bharanikavu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed an appeal (Ext.P3) against an assessment order (Ext.P2) passed under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner contends that recovery steps are being initiated by the respondents even before the stay petition is considered. The core issue in the appeal relates to the disallowance of a deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner is represented by its Secretary and the respondents are the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Officer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the recovery steps for amounts confirmed by the assessment order should be stayed pending the disposal of the appeal before the appellate authority? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the procedural fairness and the provisions related to appeals and recovery under the Income Tax Act). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that recovery steps are being pursued prematurely, even before the stay petition is considered, and that the appeal concerns a disallowance under Section 80P. The petitioner relies on the principle that recovery should be stayed pending appeal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the stay of recovery or the merits 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 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1942 WP(C).No.9089 OF 2020(I) PETITIONER/S: BHARANIKAVU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.829 BHARANIKAVU PALLICKAL, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA-690 503 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.S. JAYAPRAKASH. BY ADV. SRI.V.DEVANANDA NARASIMHAM RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 AND TPS, THIRUVALLA RANGE, T.K. ROAD, THIRUVALLA-689 101. OTHER PRESENT: SC: JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.9089 OF 2020(I) 2

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P2 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 appeal before the 1st respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that even prior to considering the stay petition, recovery steps are taken by the respondents against the petitioner for recovery of the amounts confirmed by Ext.P2 assessment order. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue involved in the appeal pertains to dis-allowance of deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act.

2.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar and taking note of the fact that in similar matters, this Court has directed the Appellate Authority to consider and pass orders in the appeal and stayed the recovery of disputed amounts pending disposal of the appeal, this Writ petition is disposed directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 appeal within an outer time limit of six months. Recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 1st respondent as directed above and the order communicated to the petitioner. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE SJ

WP(C).No.9089 OF 2020(I) 3

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT GENERATED THROUGH INCOME TAX PORTAL ELECTRONICALLY ON 29.9.19 OF INCOME TAX RETURN FILED FOR THE AY 2017-18 BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 29.12.19 FOR THE AY 2017-18 U/S. 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FIXING TAXABLE INCOME OF RS.1,57,70,700/- EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ONLINE APPEAL FILED U/S. 246A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON 23.1.2020 AGAINST EXBT-P2 ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE AY 2017-18 BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 22.12.19 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DEMANDING ASSESSED INCOME TAX FOR THE AY 2017-18 TO THE PETITIONER.

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →