THANIYAM PANCHAYATH SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.R.387, vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/19109/2020HC KeralaKLHC01048151202016 September 2020Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition by directing the third respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Crucially, the Court ordered that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the assessment order (Ext.P1), including further proceedings pursuant to the demand notice (Ext.P3), shall be kept in abeyance until such time as the third respondent passes an order and communicates it to the petitioner. The Court's decision is based on its practice in similar matters where it has directed appellate authorities to decide appeals and stay recovery.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Thaniyam Panchayath Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., has filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1) under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner has filed an appeal (Ext.P2) against this order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the third respondent. A demand notice (Ext.P3) has also been issued. The core issue in the appeal concerns the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Act, specifically its applicability to Co-operative Societies. The petitioner points out that this Court has previously directed appellate authorities to consider appeals in similar matters and keep recovery proceedings in abeyance.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the third respondent against the assessment order (Ext.P1) should be considered and decided by the appellate authority? (Question of procedure/mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the appeal pertains to the deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, a matter that has been subject to previous judicial consideration. They rely on prior High Court judgments where similar writ petitions were disposed of by directing the appellate authority to pass orders on the appeal while keeping recovery proceedings in abeyance. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue. However, the presence of the assessment order and demand notice implies the revenue's position is to proceed with recovery based on the assessment.

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.19109 OF 2020(K) PETITIONER: THANIYAM PANCHAYATH SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.R.387, P.O.KIZHUPPILLIKARA,THRISSUR-680702, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ,UNNIKRISHNAN.K.V. BY ADVS. DR.K.P.PRADEEP SHRI.HAREESH M.R. SMT.T.THASMI RESPONDENTS: 1 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES MINISTRY OF FINANCE,GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK,NEW DELHI-110001,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(5),THRISSUR,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN,INCOME TAX OFFICE, SHAKTHANTHAMPURAN NAGAR,THRISSUR-680001. 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), THRISSUR,AAYAKAR BHAVAN,S.T.NAGAR, MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD,THRISSUR-680001. BY ADV.SRI.JOSE JOSEPH,SC 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.19109 of 2020 2

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act,('The Act' for short) the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the 3rd respondent. Ext.P3 is the demand notice issued. It is the case of the petitioner that the issue involved in the appeal pertains to the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Act in its applicability to Co-operative Societies. It is pointed that in similar matters this Court has already disposed the writ petition by directing the appellate authority to consider and pass orders in the appeal and keep in abeyance the recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment orders in the meanwhile.

2.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing counsel 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 said submission, and finding that this Court has in similar matters directed the appellate authority to pass orders in the appeal, and to keep in abeyance the recovery proceedings in the meanwhile, the writ petition is disposed by directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal, within a period 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 including further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 demand notice, shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 3rd respondent as directed above and the order communicated to the petitioner. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE mns/16.9.2020

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXHIBIT -P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUTATION SHEET OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO AACAT6387J DATED 24.10.2019 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 15.01.2020 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YER 2012-13 EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.PAN AACAT6387J/2012-13 DATED 24.10.2019 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A 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 →