M/S NADAKKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/33130/2019HC KeralaKLHC01086456201905 December 2019Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 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.P5) within six months from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment. The Court also directed that recovery steps, pursuant to the demand notice (Ext.P7), shall be kept in abeyance until the Tribunal passes its order and communicates it to the petitioner. The petitioner was instructed to furnish copies of the writ petition and the judgment to the Tribunal for further action. The Court's decision was based on its practice in similar matters where it directs the Appellate Authority to consider appeals and stays recovery pending disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Nadakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging recovery steps initiated by the respondents. The petitioner had preferred an appeal (Ext.P5) along with a stay petition (Ext.P6) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent) against a rectification order (Ext.P4). The petitioner contended that recovery actions were being taken despite the pending appeal and stay petition. The issue in the appeal concerned the disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner sought a direction to the Tribunal to consider the appeal and stay the recovery proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should be directed to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal against the rectification order, and 2. Whether recovery steps should be stayed pending the disposal of the appeal. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that recovery steps were being pursued by the respondents even before the stay petition was considered by the Tribunal. They relied on the fact that the appeal pertained to the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions from 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 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941 WP(C).No.33130 OF 2019(M) PETITIONER M/S NADAKKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. KALLUVATHUKKAL.P.O., KOLLAM-691578, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH SMT.SWATHY S. RESPONDENTS 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, KOLLAM, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOLLAM-691001. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-I, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), TRIVANDRUM-695003. 3 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682037. OTHER PRESENT: SC: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).33130/2019 2

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P4 rectification order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P5 appeal together with 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.P4 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 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.P5 appeal within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Recovery steps, pursuant to Ext.P7 demand notice, 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 Mrcs/5.12.

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AY 2010-11 DATED 12.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.52,90,360/- U/S.156 DATED 12.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24.1.2019 FILED FOR AY 2015-16. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 3.9.2019. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 14.11.2019 FOR AY 2010-11. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21.11.2019 FOR AY 2010-11. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 3.11.2019. TRUE COPY

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →