THE PANGODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.T 212, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/34115/2019HC KeralaKLHC01088935201913 December 2019Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR3 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 petitioner's appeal (Ext.P4) within an outer time limit of six months. Crucially, the Court ordered that recovery steps pursuant to the rectified order (Ext.P3) for the amounts confirmed against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance until such time as orders are passed by the Tribunal and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of the judgment and the writ petition to the Tribunal. The judgment does not decide the merits of the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P, as the primary focus was on the procedural aspect of staying recovery pending appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Pangode Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., has filed a writ petition challenging a rectified order (Ext.P3) under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner has preferred an appeal (Ext.P4) along with a stay petition (Ext.P5) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent). The petitioner contends that recovery steps are being initiated by the respondents for the amounts confirmed in the rectified order, even before the stay petition is considered. The core issue in the appeal relates to the disallowance of a deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the recovery steps initiated by the respondents are premature, given that an appeal and stay petition are pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that recovery steps are being taken for amounts confirmed by the rectified order, despite the pendency of an appeal and a stay petition before the Tribunal. They rely on the principle that recovery should be stayed pending the disposal of appeals, especially when the appeal concerns a significant deduction claim. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the premature recovery steps or the merits of the appeal. The revenue's counsel appeared before the court.

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 FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1941 WP(C).No.34115 OF 2019(L) PETITIONER/S: THE PANGODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.T 212, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE PANGODE P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695021. BY ADVS. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-PIN-695003. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695003. 3 THE REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, BLOCK NO.C1 AND C2, 1ST FLOOR, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682030. SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.34115 OF 2019(L) 2

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P3 rectified order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 appeal together with Ext.P5 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 rectified 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 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, this Writ petition is disposed directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 appeal within an outer time limit of six months. Recovery steps pursuant to Ext.P3 order for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner 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 this judgment together with a copy of the writ petition before the 3rd respondent for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE WP(C).No.34115 OF 2019(L) 3

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2011-2012 DATED 15.12.2017. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2018 IN ITA NO.161/EF/TVM/CIT(A)/TVM/2017-2018 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.09.2019 IN ITA NO.161/EF/TVM/CIT(A)/TVM/2017-18, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT AND CHELAN DATED 11.11.2019. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED ALONG WITH EXT-P4 APPEAL DATED 11.11.2019. sd

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →