THE KONGAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/9948/2020HC KeralaKLHC01025409202015 May 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent) to consider and pass orders on the stay petition filed by the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt 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 order shall be kept in abeyance until such orders are passed by the Tribunal and communicated to the petitioner. The reasoning is based on the precedent set by a Division Bench of the same High Court in similar circumstances. The issue of whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 80P was not decided on merits, as the writ petition was focused on the procedural direction regarding the stay application.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Kongad Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., is challenging the rejection of its claim for the benefit of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. This claim was denied by both the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent) to consider and pass orders on its application for stay. The petitioner relies on a previous judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court which, in similar circumstances, directed the Tribunal to decide a stay petition within four months and to keep recovery proceedings in abeyance until then.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should be directed to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's application for stay, considering the pendency of the appeal before it and the rejection of the Section 80P claim by lower authorities. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the Tribunal should be directed to consider its stay application, citing a precedent from a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. The petitioner seeks a direction for the Tribunal to pass orders on the stay petition within a specified period and to keep recovery proceedings in abeyance until the stay petition is decided. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the stay application or the writ petition.

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
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE GOPINATH.P. WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MAY,2020/25TH VAISAKHA, 1942 W.P(C) NO. 9948 OF 2020 PETITIONER :: THE KONGAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. P 538, KONGAD POST, PALAKKAD – 678 631, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SHYLA K., AGED 55, D/O. C. GANGADHARAN NAIR. BY ADVS. SRI. ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON SRI. HARISANKAR. V. MENON, SMT. MEERA. V. MENON AND SMT. KRISHNA.K., RESPONDENTS:: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD – 678 014. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THRISSUR – 680 021. 3. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KAKKANADU, KOCHI – 682 030, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 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. 9948 OF 2020 2 Dated this the 15th day of May, 2020

JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed praying inter- alia for a direction to the 3rd respondent Tribunal to consider and pass orders on an application for stay.

2.

The petitioner claimed the benefit of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. This claim was rejected by the Assessing Officer as well as by the Commissioner (Appeals).

3.

The petitioner places reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, which is produced as Ext.P5 along with W.P.(C). No.9768/2020. The Division Bench has in similar circumstances, directed the Appellate Tribunal to consider and pass orders on the stay petition within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and further directed that any proceedings initiated for recovery of amounts due from the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till orders are passed on the stay petition and communicated to the petitioner.

W.P(C) NO. 9948 OF 2020 3

4.

In the light of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kochi Bench, to consider and pass orders on the stay petition marked as Ext.P4 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 order, shall be kept in abeyance. With these directions, this writ petition is disposed of. GOPINATH.P, JUDGE pm

W.P(C) NO. 9948 OF 2020 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: EXT. P1. COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DATED 27-12-2019. EXT. P2. COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DATED 03-03-2020. EXT. P3. COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 05-05-2020. EXT. P4. COPY OF PETITION FOR STAY FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 05-05-2020. EXT. P5. COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)-TMP – 36/2020 OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 11-04-2020. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →