OLLUKKARA SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/9962/2020HC KeralaKLHC01025449202015 May 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition by directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thrissur, to consider and pass orders on the appeals filed by the petitioner (Exts.P3, P6, and P9) within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court further directed that any steps initiated by the Income Tax Department for the recovery of amounts due under the assessment orders in question shall be kept in abeyance until such orders are passed and communicated to the petitioner. The Court did not decide on the merits of the Section 80P claim itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of ensuring the appeals are heard and decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ollukkara Service Co-operative Bank Limited, claimed the benefit of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. This claim was rejected by the Assessing Officer. The petitioner filed separate appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment years in question. These appeals are marked as Exts.P3, P6, and P9. The judgment notes that other writ petitions in identical situations have been disposed of by directing the Appellate Authority to consider and dispose of the appeals, with recovery proceedings kept in abeyance pending such consideration.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be directed to consider and dispose of the appeals filed by the petitioner concerning the rejection of their claim under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, through its Secretary, contends that its claim for the benefit of Section 80P was rejected by the Assessing Officer and that it has filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner relies on the precedent of other writ petitions in identical situations being disposed of with directions to the Appellate Authority to consider the appeals and keep recovery proceedings in abeyance. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue in response to the writ petition. The revenue is represented by counsel, but their arguments are not detailed in the provided text.

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 GOPINATH.P. FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MAY, 2020/25TH VAISAKHA, 1942 W.P(C) NO.9962 OF 2020 PETITIONER OLLUKKARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO.544, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MANNUTHY P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN-680561 By Adv. Sri.C. A. JOJO. RESPONDENTS 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD2 (3), AYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN STAND, THRISSUR-68001 2. THE COMMISSIONER, AYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN STAND, THRISSUR-68001 R1-2 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.05.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.9962/2020 2 Dated this the 15th day of May, 2020

JUDGMENT

The petitioner claimed the benefit of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. This claim was rejected by the Assessing Officer. Petitioner has preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thrissur, separately for each of the Assessment years in question. These appeals are produced as Exts.P3, P6 and P9. It is not disputed that other writ petitions (in identical situation) have been disposed of directing the Appellate Authority to consider and dispose of the appeals further directing that recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance pending such consideration.

2.

In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thrissur to consider and pass orders on Exts.P3, P6 and P9 in this writ petition, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till orders are so passed and communicated to the petitioner, steps (if any) initiated by the Income Tax Department for recovery of amounts due under the assessment orders in question, shall be kept in abeyance. With these directions, this Writ petition is disposed of. GOPINATH.P., JUDGE. acd

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT-P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AY 2010-11 DATED 11.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S 156 DATED 11.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2010-11 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05.01.2018 EXHIBIT-P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2016-17 DATED 28.12.2018 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5. A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR U/S 156 DATED 28.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2016-17 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.01.2019 EXHIBIT P7. A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2017-18 DATED 24.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S 156 DATED 24.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2017-18 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.01.2020

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →