THE KANJIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.F1199 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the writ petitions by directing the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent) to consider and pass orders on the stay petitions (Ext.P4 in each petition) within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court further directed that until orders are passed on the stay petitions and communicated to the petitioners, any steps initiated by the Income Tax Department for recovery of amounts due under the assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide the merits of the claims for deduction under Section 80P, as the petitions were for a direction to the Tribunal to consider the stay applications.
What were the facts?
These four writ petitions were filed by different Service Co-operative Banks (Kanjikode Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Peruvemba Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., and Thadukkassery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.) against the Income Tax Officer, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessment years in question are 2016-17 and 2017-18. The petitioners had claimed deductions under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, which were rejected by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the petitioners filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal along with stay petitions. The present writ petitions sought a direction for the Tribunal to consider and pass orders on these stay petitions.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should be directed to consider and pass orders on the pending stay petitions filed by the petitioners, and if so, within what timeframe. Assessee's Contention: The petitioners argued that they had filed appeals against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and had also filed stay petitions. They relied on a Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in similar circumstances, which directed the Appellate Tribunal to consider and pass orders on stay petitions within four months and to keep recovery proceedings in abeyance until then. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue. However, the presence of the revenue as respondents indicates their opposition or at least their role in the proceedings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (4 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT These writ petitions have been filed praying inter-alia for a direction to the 3rd respondent Tribunal to consider and pass orders on separate applications for stay (in all these writ petitions, the document marked as Ext.P4 is the application for stay). In W.P.(C). No.9768/20, the assessment year question is AY 2016-17, in W.P.(C). Nos. 9770/20 and 9774/20, the assessment year in question is 2017-18, in W.P.(C). No. 9799/20, the assessment year in question is 2016/17. 2. In all these cases, the petitioners claimed the benefit of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. This claim was rejected by the Assessing Officer as well as by the Commissioner (Appeals). In all these cases, Ext.P1 is the order of assessment and Ext.P2 is the order of the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), rejecting the appeals filed by the petitioners. Challenging Ext.P2 appellate order. The petitioners have filed separate appeals marked as Ext.P3 in each of these writ petitions together with stay petitions, which are marked as Ext.P4 in each of these writ petitions.
The petitioners place reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, which is produced as Ext.P5 along with W.P.(C). No.9768/20. The Division Bench has in similar circumstances, directed the Appellate Tribunal to consider and pass orders on the stay petitions within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and any proceedings initiated for recovery of amounts due from the petitioners were directed to kept in abeyance till orders are passed on the stay petitions and communicated to the petitioners.
In the light of the above, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the 3rd respondent, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kochi Bench, to consider and pass orders on the stay petitions marked as Ext.P4 in each of these writ petitions, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till orders are so passed and communicated to the petitioners, steps (if any) initiated by the Income Tax Department for recovery of amounts due under the assessment orders, shall be kept in abeyance. With these observations and directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. GOPINATH.P JUDGE Dxy
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
More judgments on Section 80P
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Duddukuru Primary Agricultural Cooperative… vs ITO, Ward - 1, TadepalligudemITA 258/VIZ/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- Jijamata Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari… vs ITO Ward -1, BhandraITA 102/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shri Na vs Ari Khedut Sahkari Society Ltd…ITA 362/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026