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

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/8966/2020HC KeralaKLHC01023151202030 July 2020Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, considering the facts and circumstances and the submissions made, and noting its own previous decisions in identical matters, disposed of the writ petition. The Court directed the first respondent, the 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 from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Crucially, the Court ordered that recovery steps for amounts confirmed by the assessment order (Ext.P2), including further proceedings pursuant to the demand notice (Ext.P4), shall be kept in abeyance until the first respondent passes an order and communicates it to the petitioner. The petitioner is required to produce copies of the writ petition and the judgment before the first respondent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pullukulangara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, is challenging an assessment order (Ext.P2) passed under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner has filed an appeal (Ext.P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the first respondent. A demand notice (Ext.P4) has also been issued. The core issue in the appeal pertains to the permissibility of a deduction under Section 80P of the Act, specifically as it applies to Co-operative Societies. The petitioner has approached the High Court of Kerala through a writ petition seeking directions regarding the pending appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass orders on the appeal filed by the petitioner concerning the deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, represented by its counsel, seeks a direction for the expeditious disposal of its appeal before the first respondent, highlighting that the appeal concerns a deduction under Section 80P of the Act applicable to co-operative societies. The petitioner also seeks a stay on recovery proceedings pending the appeal's disposal. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, appeared before the court. No specific arguments from the revenue are recorded in the judgment, other than their appearance.

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 30TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1942 WP(C).No.8966 OF 2020(U) PETITIONER: PULLUKULANGARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.2992,KAYAMKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690 502, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,M.Y SAMEENA BY ADV. SRI.V.DEVANANDA NARASIMHAM RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 001 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3,A.N.PURM, ALAPPUZHA-688 011 BY GOVT.PLEADER DR.THUSHARA JAMES, BY ADV.SRI.JOSE JOSEPH,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.8966 OF 2020(U) 2

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P2 assessment order under the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 appeal before the 1st respondent. Ext.P4 is the demand notice. It is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that the issue involved in the appeal is the permissibility of a deduction under Section 80P of the Act as applicable to Co-operative Societies.

2.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Standing counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, and taking note of the decisions of this Court whereby this Court has, in identical matters, directed the appellate authority to consider and pass orders in the appeal, and stayed the recovery proceedings pending disposal of the appeal by the appellate authority, I dispose this Writ Petition by directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 appeal within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. It is made clear that recovery

WP(C).No.8966 OF 2020(U) 3 steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P2 assessment order, including further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 demand notice, shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 1st respondent as directed, and the order communicated to the petitioner,. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the 1st respondent, for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE mns

WP(C).No.8966 OF 2020(U) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT GENERATED THOUGH INCOME TAX PORTAL ELECTRONICALLY N 29.09.19 F 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 21.12.2O19 FOR THE AY 2017-18 U/S. 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FIXING TAXABLE INCOME OF RS 11,71,02,643/- EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ONLINE APPEAL FOR THE AY 2017-18 FILED U/S. 246 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON 20.01.2020 AGAINST EXT P2 ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE AY 2017-18 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 21.12.19 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DEMANDING ASSESSED INCOME TAX FOR THE AY 2017-18 TO THE PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 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 →