PALODE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/20958/2021HC KeralaKLHC01053691202108 October 2021Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS6 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner had indeed e-filed the appeal, as evidenced by the acknowledgment receipt (Ext.P2) dated September 23, 2021. The Court noted that the petitioner had initially attempted to file the appeal via email due to technical glitches on the Income Tax Department's portal, and subsequently filed it through the e-filing method. The Court found that the main issue in the appeal concerned the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P, which the petitioner contended was contrary to the judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others [2021 (1) KLT 485]. Following its own precedent in similar matters, the Court directed the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and dispose of the appeal expeditiously. Until such disposal, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) were to be kept in abeyance.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Palode Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking a time-bound disposal of its appeal (Ext.P2) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent). An assessment order (Ext.P1) was passed against the petitioner for assessment year 2018-19 on May 31, 2021. The petitioner initially attempted to file its appeal via email due to technical glitches on the Income Tax Department's e-filing portal. Once the glitches were rectified, the petitioner filed the appeal through the e-filing method, with an acknowledgment receipt dated September 23, 2021, produced as Ext.P2. The appeal pertains to the disallowance of a deduction claim under Section 80P.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner's appeal, filed through e-filing after an initial attempt via email due to technical glitches, is valid and should be considered by the appellate authority? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning procedural compliance). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that due to technical issues with the e-filing portal, they initially filed the appeal via email within the prescribed time limit. Subsequently, upon rectification of the glitches, they filed the appeal through the e-filing method, as evidenced by the acknowledgment receipt (Ext.P2). They relied on the principle of treating similar matters alike, as observed in previous High Court judgments. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue regarding the validity of the e-filing or the procedural aspects of the appeal.

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 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 16TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 20958 OF 2021 PETITIONER: PALODE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD KUSAVOOR, KARIMANCODE, PALODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 562, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY BY ADVS. ANIL D. NAIR TELMA RAJU SANGEETH JOSEPH JACOB CHRISTINA ANNA PAUL ARAVIND SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NATIONAL E- ASSESSMENT CENTRE-NEAC, ROOM NO 402, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, NEAR GATE NO 10, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, NEW DELHI- 110 003. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE-NEAC ROOM NO 402, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, NEAR GATE NO 10, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, NEW DELHI-110 003. OTHER PRESENT: ADV. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 20958 OF 2021 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J ................................................ W.P.(C) NO. 20958 OF 2021 …........................................ Dated this the 8th day of october, 2021

JUDGMENT Petitioner seeks a relief of disposal of Ext.P2 appeal in a time bound manner.

2.

An order of assessment was passed against the petitioner on 31-5-2021 for the assessment year 2018-19. Petitioner claims to have preferred an appeal through Ext.P2 before the 2nd respondent. During the course of hearing, a dispute arose as to whether the petitioner had carried out an e-mail filing of the appeal or whether it was an WP(C) NO. 20958 OF 2021 3 e-filing of the appeal which was done by the petitioner. The records produced before this Court shows that petitioner had, initially, within the time limit for filing an appeal, preferred the appeal through e-mail, as the technical glitches of the electronic portal of the Income Tax Department prevented the petitioner from uploading the appeal through e-filing method. Subsequently when the glitches where rectified, petitioner filed the appeal through the e-filing method.

3.

Petitioner has produced Ext.P2 acknowledgment receipt of e-filing dated 23-09-2021. In view of the acknowledgment receipt Ext.P2 dated 23/9/2021, it is clear that petitioner has e-filed the appeal. The stay petition filed by the petitioner is also pending consideration.

WP(C) NO. 20958 OF 2021 4

4.

A perusal of the memorandum of appeal reveals that the main issue involved in the appeal relates to the disallowance of the claim for deduction under Section 80P. According to the petitioner the said disallowance was contrary to the judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others [2021 (1) KLT 485].

5.

Since in similar matters this Court has directed the appeal itself to be considered and disposed of, it is essential that the petitioner also be treated alike.

6.

Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 appeal (as acknowledged

by e-filing

WP(C) NO. 20958 OF 2021 5 acknowledgement dated 23-09-2021) as expeditiously as possible. Till such orders

are passed,

all coercive proceedings against petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJM

WP(C) NO. 20958 OF 2021 6

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20958/2021 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 DATED 31.5.2021 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 5.6.2021. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 5.6.2021. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 13.7.2021 RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS: NIL AJM //TRUE COPY// PA 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 →