CHERUNNIYOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.726 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/35554/2019HC KeralaKLHC01092192201920 December 2019Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition by directing the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P4) within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. The Court further directed that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the rectified order (Ext.P3) shall be kept in abeyance until such time as orders are passed by the Tribunal and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to produce a copy of the writ petition and the judgment before the Tribunal for further action. The High Court did not decide the merits of the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Cherunniyoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed an appeal (Ext.P4) and a stay petition (Ext.P5) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent) against a rectified order (Ext.P3) passed by the Income Tax Officer (1st respondent). The petitioner contended that recovery steps were being initiated by the respondents even before the stay petition could be considered. The core issue in the appeal concerns the disallowance of a deduction claimed by the petitioner under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of their appeal and a stay on recovery proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should be directed to consider and pass orders on the appeal filed by the petitioner against the rectified order. 2. Whether recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the rectified order should be stayed pending the disposal of the appeal. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that recovery steps were being taken prematurely, before the consideration of their stay petition. They relied on the fact that the appeal pertains to the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner sought a direction for the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal expeditiously and to stay recovery proceedings. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from 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 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941 WP(C).No.35554 OF 2019(T) PETITIONER: CHERUNNIYOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.726 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHERUNNIYOOR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 142. BY ADVS. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 (5), OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003. 3 THE REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, BLOCK NO. C1 AND C2, 1ST FLOOR, KAKKANAD, COCHIN 682 030. BYADV.SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).No.35554 of 2019 2

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P3 rectified order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 appeal together with Ext.P5 stay petition before the 3rd 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.P3 rectified 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 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 appeal within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Recovery

W.P(C).No.35554 of 2019 3 steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P3 rectified order shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 3rd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment, before the 3rd respondent, for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE mns

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2015-2016 DATED 23.11.2017. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.12.2018 IN ITA NO. 107/EF/TVM/CIT(A)/TVM/2017-18 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.09.2019 IN ITS NO. 107/EF/TVM/CIT(A)/TVM /2017-18 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT NUDER SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 30.11.2019 ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT AND CHELAN. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED ALONG WITH EXT. P4 APPEAL DATED 30.11.2019. 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 →