MUPPATHADAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD E-216 vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/19088/2020HC KeralaKLHC01048109202016 September 2020Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also directed that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance until such time as orders are passed by the 3rd respondent and communicated to the petitioner. The Court noted that this direction was based on the fact that similar matters had received such treatment from the Court. No specific finding was made on the merits of the deduction under Section 80P.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Muppathadam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, is challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1) under the Income Tax Act. The bank has filed an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the 3rd respondent. The core issue in the appeal pertains to the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner contends that in similar cases, the High Court has directed the Appellate Authority to dispose of appeals within a timeframe and to keep recovery proceedings in abeyance pending the appeal's disposal. The petitioner seeks a similar direction.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Authority should be directed to consider and pass orders on the appeal within a specified time frame, and to keep recovery proceedings in abeyance pending the appeal's disposal, in a case involving a deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner bank argues that the issue involved in their appeal is the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. They rely on previous High Court judgments where similar directions were issued to the Appellate Authority to consider appeals expeditiously and to stay recovery of disputed amounts. They seek a similar order in their case. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue (respondents).

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 WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 25TH BHADRA, 1942 WP(C).No.19088 OF 2020(I) PETITIONER/S: MUPPATHADAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD E-216 MUPPATHADAM P.O ALUVA 683110 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SABU P.H BY ADVS. DR.K.P.PRADEEP SHRI.HAREESH M.R. SMT.T.THASMI RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 2 ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA- 560500 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPELAS) KOCHI POORNIMA BUILDINGS, PANAMPILY NAGAR, KOCHI 682 036 OTHER PRESENT: SC: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.19088 OF 2020(I) 2

JUDGMENT

Against Ext.P1 Assessment order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal together with Ext.P3 stay petition before the 3rd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the issue involved in the appeal is the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act and in similar cases this Court has directed the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal itself within a time frame and to keep in abeyance the recovery proceedings for recovery of amount confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order.

2.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 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 matters, 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 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 3rd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

SJ

WP(C).No.19088 OF 2020(I) 3

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION AND ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 WITH NO AAOFM7529A/2018-19 DATED 8.02.2020 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 9.03.2020 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION FILED ON 9.03.2020 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN EXT.P2 APPEAL

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →