KADUNGALLOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/13998/2020HC KeralaKLHC01035389202010 July 2020Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. The Court clarified that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the assessment order (Ext.P1) would be kept in abeyance until the appellate authority passes an order and communicates it to the petitioner. The Court noted that the issue under consideration in the appeal pertains to the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act in the case of Co-operative societies. The Court's decision to grant a stay on recovery is based on similar orders passed in connected cases.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kadungalloor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the expeditious disposal of its appeal and stay petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal was against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner requested that recovery steps pursuant to the assessment order be kept in abeyance until the appeal was decided. The High Court heard both the petitioner's counsel and the respondents' Standing Counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be directed to expeditiously consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal against the assessment order under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether recovery steps pursuant to the assessment order should be kept in abeyance pending the disposal of the appeal. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner sought a direction for the speedy disposal of its appeal and a stay on recovery proceedings. The petitioner relied on the fact that similar matters have been granted stay by this Court. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

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 FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1942 WP(C).No.13998 OF 2020(Y) PETITIONER: KADUNGALLOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.863 WEST KADUNGALLOOR P.O, ALUVA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683110 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.NIKHIL S.L BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR SMT.G.REMADEVI SMT.HARIMA HARIHARAN SHRI.RAJATH R NATH SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: 1. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, K.A.P COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, R.S ROAD, ALUVA, PIN-683101 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), G-51, PARAPILLIY LN, MANORAMA JUNCTION, GIRI NAGR PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI, KERALA-682036 BY ADV.SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.13998 of 2020 2

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition before the 2nd respondent. The limited prayer in the Writ Petition is for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the appeal, expeditiously, after hearing the petitioner and to keep in abeyance recovery steps pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order in the meanwhile.

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, I find that the issue under consideration in the appeal is the permissibility of the deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act in the case of Co-operative societies. Inasmuch as this Court has, in connected cases, granted a stay of recovery till such time as appeals are decided by the appellate authority, I dispose the Writ Petition by directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 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 steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 2nd respondent in the appeal, 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 2nd respondent, for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE mns/10.7.2020

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXHIBIT -P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18. EXHIBIT P2- COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 24.01.2020 AGAINST EXT.P1 EXHIBIT P3- COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04.06.2020

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →