THE KATTTAKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. T 145, vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/34504/2019HC KeralaKLHC01090044201917 December 2019Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court condoned the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court directed the Tribunal to consider and pass orders on the appeal (Ext.P4) within six months from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment. Pending the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal, recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the rectification order (Ext.P3) were ordered to be kept in abeyance. The Court noted that similar matters had resulted in directions for the Appellate Authority to consider appeals and stay recovery. The issue of the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P was not decided on merits by the High Court, as the primary focus was on procedural directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Kattakode Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging recovery steps initiated by the Income Tax Officer. The petitioner had filed an appeal (Ext.P4) along with a delay condonation petition (Ext.P5) and a stay petition (Ext.P6) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent) against a rectification order (Ext.P3). The petitioner contended that recovery steps were being taken even before the stay petition was considered. The appeal concerned the disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The delay in filing the appeal was 14 days.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should be condoned? (Question of procedure) 2. Whether recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the rectification order should be stayed pending the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the powers of the Tribunal and the merits of the appeal). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that recovery steps were being pursued prematurely, before the consideration of their stay petition by the Tribunal. They relied on the fact that the delay was minimal (14 days) and that the appeal concerned a significant issue regarding the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in response to 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019/26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941 W.P(C).No.34504 OF 2019 PETITIONER: THE KATTTAKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. T 145, KATTAKODE, KATTAKADA, TRIVANDRUM - 695 572, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY THOMAS JOHN. BY ADVS.SRI.S.ARUN RAJ SMT.C.T.SUJA SRI.ARJUN S.RAJ RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AYAKAR BHAWAN, 1ST FLOOR, KOWDIAR P.O., TRIVANDRUM - 695 003. 2 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AYAKAR BHAWAN, KOWDIAR P.O., TRIVANDRUM - 695 003. 3 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 037. BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.34504/2019 :: 2 ::

J U D G M E N T Against Ext.P3 rectification order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 appeal together with Ext.P5 delay condonation petition as also Ext.P6 stay petition before the 3rd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that even prior to considering the stay petition, recovery steps are taken by the respondents against the petitioner for recovery of the amounts confirmed by Ext.P3 rectification order. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue involved in the appeal pertains to dis-allowance of deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act.

2.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar and taking note

W.P.(C).No.34504/2019 of the fact that in similar matters, this Court has directed the Appellate Authority to consider and pass orders in the appeal and stayed the recovery of disputed amounts pending disposal of the appeal. Taking note of the fact that delay occassioned in filing the appeal before the 3rd respondent is only 14 days, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay, and dispose this Writ petition with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 appeal within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P3 rectification order shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 3rd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the 3rd respondent, for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp/17/12/19

W.P.(C).No.34504/2019

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20-11- 2017 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2011-12. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05-03-2019 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF THE INCOME TAX (APPEALS), TRIVANDRUM UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE ACT ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE AY 2011-12. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03-09-2019 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF THE INCOME TAX (APPEALS), TRIVANDRUM UNDER SECTION 154 R.W.S. 250 OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2011-12. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH FOR THE AY 2011-12. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION (DELAY OF 14 DAYS) FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2011-12. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04-12-2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO. 27295 OF 2019 IN THE CASE OF PACS PERTAINING TO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 80 P. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. 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 →