THE MELATTUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. R F 1183, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/9553/2020HC KeralaKLHC01024435202028 April 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found merit in the petitioner's contention that coercive steps pending the statutory appeal would render the appeal redundant and cause severe difficulties. Therefore, the Court directed the first respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's appeal (Ext. P2) within a period of 6 months. The order directing the deposit of 20% of the tax for the grant of stay (Ext. P6) was ordered not to be implemented. No recovery was to be initiated until the disposal of the appeal. The Court did not decide on the tenability of the disallowance of the Section 80P deduction itself, as the appeal was pending.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Melattur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, is an income tax assessee. The dispute pertains to the assessment year 2017-18. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) disallowed the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, demanding an amount of Rs. 2,13,93,647/- as tax. The petitioner filed an appeal against this assessment and a stay petition. The stay petition resulted in an order requiring a deposit of 20% of the tax as a condition for granting a stay. A subsequent review petition was dismissed. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging the coercive steps pending the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the disallowance of the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act by the first respondent is tenable. Assessee's contention: The reason for disallowing the claim for deduction under Section 80P is not tenable. The petitioner argued that proceeding with coercive steps pending the statutory appeal would render the appeal redundant and cause severe difficulties. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

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 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2020/8TH VAISAKHA, 1942 W.P(C) NO.9553 OF 2020 PETITIONER: MELATTUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.R F 1183, MELATTUR.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI. O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE-PIN 673 001 2. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AYAKAR BHAVAN, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN - 676 001 3. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (4), TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 001 BY SRI.K.P.HARISH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) TMP HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.04.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) No. 9553/2020 2

JUDGMENT

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner through video conferencing. I have also heard the standing counsel for income tax who has taken notice on behalf of respondents. In the nature of the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it fit that this writ petition be disposed of.

2.

Petitioner is an income tax assessee and the issue relates to the assessment year 2017-18. By Ext. P1, the 1st respondent disallowed petitioner’s claim for deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act and demanded an amount of Rs.2,13,93,647/- as tax.

3.

Challenging the said assessment, petitioner has preferred Ext. P2 appeal contending that the reason for disallowing petitioner’s claim for deduction under section 80P is not tenable. Ext.P3 stay petition was also filed which resulted in Ext.P4 order directing deposit of 20% of the tax as a condition for grant of stay. A review petition filed was also dismissed as Ext.P6. 4. I find force in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that if the respondents proceed with coercive steps pending consideration of the statutory appeal, the same will be rendered redundant and petitioner will be put to severe difficulties. Considering the nature of contentions put forth in the appeal, it is appropriate that the same be directed to be disposed of.

In such circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition by directing the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 appeal within a period of 6 months. The order directing deposit of 20% for the grant of stay under Ext.P6 shall not be implemented. The appeal shall be disposed of and no recovery shall be initiated till the disposal of the appeal. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE csl

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS: EXT. P1-. TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18. EXT. P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 11.01.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18. EXT. P3 – TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 12.01.2020 FOR STAY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR STAYING ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18. EXT. P4- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 11.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 15.02.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 EXT. P6- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 17.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18. RESPONDENT'S/S' EXHIBITS:NIL /TRUE COPY/ VPS PS TO JUDGE

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →