THE MANNARKKAD TALUK GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES vs. THE ADDITIONAL / JOINT/ DEPUTY / ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX / INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court directed the 2nd respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi) to dispose of the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) within an outer period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court clarified that the appeal should be disposed of without insisting on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded. Furthermore, all recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) were ordered to be kept in abeyance until a decision was taken on the appeal. The Court did not decide on the merits of the Section 80P claim itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of ensuring timely disposal of the appeal and interim relief from coercive steps.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Mannarkkad Taluk Government Employees Co-operative Credit Society Limited, claimed a deduction under Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act. The assessing officer, by an order dated March 29, 2022, under Section 143(3), disallowed the claim under Section 80P(2) and raised a demand. The petitioner filed an appeal and a stay petition before the first respondent (Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi). The appeal was pending. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction for early disposal of the appeal and to prevent coercive recovery steps, apprehending such actions based on the assessment order.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should direct the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner without insisting on any deposit, considering the pendency of connected matters where similar directions were issued. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that there are connected matters where the High Court has already directed the Appellate Authority to dispose of appeals concerning Section 80P deductions without insisting on any deposit. They sought similar directions for their pending appeal. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Petitioner is a co-operative society, who claimed the benefit under Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act. By the order dated 29.03.2022, the assessing officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act and disallowed the claim under Section 80P(2) of the Act. A demand has already been made against the petitioner.
Challenging the order of assessment, petitioner has preferred an appeal along with stay petition before the first respondent as Ext.P2 and Ext.P3. It is submitted that the appeal is pending consideration. However, apprehending coercive steps that may be initiated, pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order, petitioner seeks for a direction for an early disposal of Ext.P2 appeal.
WP(C) NO. 16690 OF 2022 3 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Adv.Harisankar V.Menon as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents Sri.Jose Joseph.
The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that there are connected matters in which this Court has already issued directions to the Appellate Authority to dispose of appeals in cases where the deduction under Section 80P of the Act have been sought without insisting on any deposit.
Having regard to the circumstances arising in the case, I am of the view that the appeal filed by the petitioner as Ext.P2 before the first respondent can be directed to be disposed of in accordance with law.
Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within an outer period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that the appeal shall be disposed of by the 2nd respondent without insisting on payment of 20% of the tax demanded. Needless to say, till a decision is WP(C) NO. 16690 OF 2022 4 taken by the first respondent on the appeal, all recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is allowed as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJM
WP(C) NO. 16690 OF 2022 5
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 →- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
