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

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/34944/2019HC KeralaKLHC01091330201919 December 2019Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court 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 six months from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment. The Court further ordered that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed against the petitioner in the rectified order (Ext.P3) shall be kept in abeyance until the Tribunal passes its orders and communicates them to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish copies of the writ petition and the judgment to the Tribunal. The judgment did not decide the substantive issue of the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kasthoorba Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging recovery steps initiated by the Income Tax Department. The petitioner had preferred an appeal (Ext.P4) along with a stay petition (Ext.P5) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent) against a rectified order (Ext.P3). The petitioner contended that recovery actions were being taken even before the stay petition was considered. The core issue in the appeal concerned the disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the recovery steps initiated by the respondent Income Tax Department are premature, given that an appeal and stay petition are pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal? The petitioner argued that recovery actions were being pursued despite the pendency of their appeal and stay petition before the Tribunal, implying that such actions should be halted until the appeal is decided. The revenue's contentions were not explicitly recorded in the judgment regarding this specific procedural aspect. The underlying substantive issue, which is the subject of the appeal, is the disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, but the primary focus of the writ petition and the court's decision was on the recovery proceedings.

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 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941 WP(C).No.34944 OF 2019 PETITIONER/S: KASTHOORBA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.681, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE, CHOOTTAYIL, KILIMANOOR.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695601. BY ADVS. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WRD-2(5), OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695003. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695003. 3 THE REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, BLOCK NO.C1 AND C2, 1ST FLOOR, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682030. OTHER PRESENT: SC CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.34944/19 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 submission 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 for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel 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 fact that in similar cases, 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 3 rd 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.

Recovery steps for recovery of the amounts confirmed against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 3 rd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE

okb //// P.S. to Judge

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2012-2013 DATED 26.3.2015. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.11.2017 IN ITA NO.28/TVM/CIT(A), TVM/2015-16 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.10.2019 IN ITA NO.28/TVM/CIT(A), TVM/2015-16 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 9.12.2019 ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT AND CHELAN. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED ALONG WITH EXT.P4 APPEAL DATED 9.12.2019.

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →