THE NAGALASSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/9947/2020HC KeralaKLHC01025407202015 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 3rd respondent, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kochi Bench, to consider and pass orders on the stay petition (marked as Ext.P4) within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court further directed that until orders are passed and communicated to the petitioner, any steps initiated by the Income Tax Department for the recovery of amounts due under the assessment order shall be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide on the merits of the Section 80P claim itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of expediting the stay application.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Nagalassery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., represented by its Secretary, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to consider and pass orders on its application for stay. The petitioner had claimed the benefit of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, which was rejected by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals). The petitioner relied on a Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in a similar case, which directed the ITAT to decide the stay petition within four months and 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 stay application? (Question of procedure) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the ITAT should be directed to consider and pass orders on its stay application, relying on a previous Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in similar circumstances. This judgment directed the ITAT to decide stay petitions within four months and keep recovery proceedings in abeyance. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the direction to the ITAT to consider the stay application. The focus of the judgment is on the petitioner's prayer and the precedent relied upon.

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. WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MAY,2020/25TH VAISAKHA, 1942 W.P(C) NO. 9947 OF 2020 PETITIONER :: THE NAGALASSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KOOTTANAD POST, KOOTTANAD, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD – 679 533, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KRISHNAKUMAR N., AGED 38, S/O. NARAYANAN 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 3, 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. 9947 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 W.P(C) NO. 9947 OF 2020 3 petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till orders are passed on the stay petition and communicated to the petitioner.

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. 9947 OF 2020 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: EXT. P1. COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 26-12-2018. EXT. P2. COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 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 →