THE KOLLAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1830 vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/18608/2020HC KeralaKLHC01046874202011 September 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner on its merits and pass appropriate orders. The Court also restrained the respondents from taking coercive action against the petitioner until the appeal was considered and disposed of. The Court further directed that the appeal should be considered and disposed of within a period of six months. The primary reasoning was to prevent undue hardship to the petitioner by coercive steps while its statutory appeal was pending. The judgment does not decide the merits of the tax dispute itself, but focuses on procedural relief.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Kollad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed its income tax return for assessment year 2019-2020, claiming a deduction under Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Authority disallowed the claim for deduction under Section 80P(2) and completed the assessment, demanding a tax of ₹66,38,680. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (Appeals). Pending the appeal, the petitioner contended that coercive steps were being taken against it. This writ petition was filed before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to consider the appeal and to restrain coercive action.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals to consider the pending appeal on its merits? (Question of procedure) 2. Whether coercive steps should be restrained against the petitioner pending the disposal of the appeal? (Question of interim relief) Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that its statutory appeal was pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals. It further contended that coercive steps were being taken against it, which would cause untold difficulties. The petitioner sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of its appeal and a stay on coercive measures. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions from the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P(2),Section 80P(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 20TH BHADRA, 1942 WP(C).No.18608 OF 2020(A) PETITIONER: THE KOLLAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1830,KOLLAD P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), AYAKAR BHAVAN,KOTTAYAM PIN 686 001. 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD NO.2, KOTTAYAM PIN 686 001. BY SRI JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Dated this the 11th day of September, 2020 The petitioner is a Co-operative bank. The petitioner furnished income tax returns for the assessment year 1919- 2020 and claimed the benefit under Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Authority completed the assessment and demanded a tax of `66,38,680/- by disallowing claim for deduction under Section 80P(2) of the Income Tax Act.

2.

The petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, Kottayam. Pending the appeal, coercive steps are being taken against the petitioner, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3.

Heard.

4.

The statutory appeal filed by the petitioner is pending. Before considering the same on merits if coercive steps are taken against the petitioner, the petitioner will be put to untold difficulties. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P2 appeal filed by the petitioner on merits and pass appropriate orders thereon. Till Ext.P2 is considered and disposed of, the respondents are restrained from taking coercive action against the petitioner. The appeal shall be considered and disposed of within a period of six months. N. NAGARESH JUDGE ncd

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING 13.07.2020N ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 22.08.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

More judgments on Section 80P(2)

All 332 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →