THE KODAKARA FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.R761 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/9781/2020HC KeralaKLHC01025034202008 May 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass orders on the appeal (Ext.P2) without insisting for any deposit as a condition for the grant of stay. The Court also directed the second respondent to consider and pass orders on the application for condonation of the one-day delay in preferring the appeal. The appellate authority was instructed to complete this process within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. The primary principle applied is that in similar circumstances, the appellate authority should be directed to consider the appeal expeditiously without demanding pre-deposit for stay, especially when a delay condonation application is also pending.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Kodara Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner had an assessment order dated December 15, 2017, rejecting its claim for the benefit of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2010-11. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) along with an application for condonation of a one-day delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner apprehended recovery proceedings while the stay application was pending. The petitioner relied on previous High Court judgments where similar directions were issued to dispose of appeals without insisting on any deposit.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appellate authority should be directed to consider and pass orders on the appeal without insisting for any deposit as a condition for grant of stay, considering the pendency of the application for condonation of delay. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that in similar circumstances, the High Court had directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal without insisting on any deposit. They relied on Exts.P5(a) and P5(b), which are judgments of the High Court in similar writ petitions. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

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 08TH DAY OF MAY, 2020/18TH VAISAKHA, 1942 W.P(C) NO.9781 OF 2020 PETITIONER: THE KODAKARA FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. R761, KODAKARA, THRISSUR – 680 684, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, V. D. BIJU, AGED 46, S/O. DEVASSYKUTTY. BY ADVS. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON SRI.HARISANKAR V MENON SMT.MEERA V MENON SMT.KRISHNA K RESPONDENTS: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(5), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, THRISSUR – 680 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR – 680 021. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.05.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) No. 9781/2020 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner suffered an order of assessment rejecting its claim for benefit of Section 80 P of the Income Tax Act, on 15.12.2017. It has preferred Ext.P2 appeal together with Ext.P3 application for condonation of one day's delay in filing

the appeal before the first appellate authority. The petitioner apprehends recovery proceedings pending consideration of the application for stay. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the similar circumstances, this Court has directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal without insisting for any deposit.

3.

My attention is drawn to the orders produced as Exts.P5(a) and P5(b). Having considered the matter, I am of the opinion that this writ petition can also be disposed of directing the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal without insisting for any deposit as a condition for grant of stay. The second respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 (after condoning the delay of one day in preferring the appeal) within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of. GOPINATH P. JUDGE ncd APPENDIX PETITIONER’S EXTS: EXT. P1. COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 15-12- 2017. EXT. P2. COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22-01-2018. EXT. P3. COPY OF PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21-01-2018. EXT. P4. COPY OF PETITION FOR STAY FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21-01-2018. EXT. P5. COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P. (C) NO. 9162/2020 DATED 23-03-2020. EXT. P5(A). COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.3525/2020 DATED 10-02-2020. EXT. P5(B). COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P. (C) NO.5027/2020 DATED 25-02-2020.

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →