THE MALANAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. K. 340, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/29161/2021HC KeralaKLHC01072564202116 December 2021Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala directed the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider the statutory appeal (Ext.P2) filed by the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered a stay of recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until orders are passed on the petitioner's appeal. The reasoning is based on the facts and circumstances of the case, acknowledging the pendency of the statutory appeal. The operative direction is to consider the appeal and to stay recovery. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Malanad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, is a primary agricultural society. It is aggrieved by an assessment order (Ext.P1) dated February 17, 2021, passed by the Income Tax Officer (1st respondent) for Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessment order disallowed deductions claimed under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner has filed a statutory appeal (Ext.P2) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent). The present writ petition (WP(C) No. 29161 of 2021) has been filed with a limited prayer seeking a direction for the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P2 appeal. The assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) read with Sections 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) should be directed to consider the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner? Assessee's contention: The petitioner, a primary agricultural society, has filed a statutory appeal (Ext.P2) against the assessment order (Ext.P1) which disallowed deductions under Section 80P. The petitioner's sole prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and decide this appeal. Revenue's contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax department was heard, but does not detail any specific arguments or contentions raised by the revenue in opposition to the petitioner's prayer for a direction to consider the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 143(3),Section 143(3A),Section 143(3B)

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 MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 29161 OF 2021 PETITIONER/S: THE MALANAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.K-340 MALANAD SCB BUILDING, VAGAMON PO, ELAPPARA IDUKKI 685 503 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY JAIN XAVIER BY ADV S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM NEW DELHI – 110003 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110001 R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 29161 OF 2021 ..2..

JUDGMENT The petitioner is a primary agricultural society and is aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment passed by the 1st respondent disallowing the deductions claimed under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. Against Ext.P1 order, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the 2nd respondent. The limited prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P2 appeal.

2.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax department.

3.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P2 statutory appeal, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till orders are passed on Ext.P2 appeal as above, there will a stay of recovery pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SB/16/12/2021

WP(C) NO. 29161 OF 2021 ..3.. APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXTS. EXT.P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 17.2.21 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S.143(3A) & 143 (3B) OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2018-19 EXT.P2OF THE FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR THE AY 2018-19

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →