THE EDATHIRUTHY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO F 1045 vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala directed the Appellate Authority (the first respondent) to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner (Ext.P2) within an outer period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. This disposal is to be in accordance with the law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Crucially, 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 were to be kept in abeyance until a decision was taken by the Appellate Authority on the appeal. The Court's reasoning was based on the circumstances of the case and the precedent set in similar matters.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Edathiruthi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, is a co-operative society that claimed a benefit under Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer, through an order dated December 17, 2019, completed the assessment under Section 143(3) and disallowed the claim under Section 80P(2). A significant demand was raised against the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the first respondent, which was pending. The petitioner sought a direction for the early disposal of this appeal, apprehending coercive steps based on the assessment order.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the early disposal of their appeal pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that connected matters with similar issues, where deductions under Section 80P were sought, had already seen this Court directing the Appellate Authority to dispose of appeals without insisting on any deposit. They relied on a judgment (Ext.P3) where a similar direction was issued for disposal without insisting on payment of a percentage of the assessed amount. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue's side regarding the disposal of the appeal.
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 17.12.2019, 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 for a huge amount has already been made against the petitioner.
Challenging the order of assessment, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the first respondent. The said appeal is produced as Ext.P2. It is submitted that the appeal is pending consideration. However, apprehending coercive steps that may be initiated, pursuant to Ext.P1
WP(C) NO. 19856 OF 2021 -3- assessment order, petitioner seeks for a direction for an early disposal of Ext.P2 appeal.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Adv.O.D.Sivadas 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. Ext.P3 is one such judgment where this Court directed the appeal to be disposed of without insisting on payment of any percentage of the amount already assessed.
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 WP(C) NO. 19856 OF 2021 -4- accordance with law. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the Appellate Authority concerned 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 1st respondent without insisting on payment of 20% of the tax demanded. Needless to say, till a decision is taken by the 1st respondent on the appeal, all recovery proceedings pursuant to assessment order shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is allowed as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE hmh
WP(C) NO. 19856 OF 2021 -5-
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
More judgments on Section 80P(4)
- Suvarnakarara Co-Operative Society Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, KarwarITA 210/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Suvarnakarara Co-Operative Society Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, KarawarITA 209/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Suvarnakarara Co-Operative Society Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, KarwarITA 208/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Vijapur Taluka Co-Operative Purchase… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, PatanITA 925/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Shri Gajanan Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha… vs ITO WD-2(1), KolhapurITA 2768/PUN/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
