PAPPINISSEERI CO-OPERATIVE RURAL BANK LIMITED NO-F 1321 vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/9206/2020HC KeralaKLHC01023555202023 March 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala held that recovery proceedings should be stayed until the appeals filed by the petitioner are disposed of. The Court acknowledged that the issue regarding the petitioner's coverage under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, needs to be adjudicated based on the Full Bench decision in Mavilayil Service Co-operative Bank Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut. The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to stay recovery until the appeal is decided, without making any observations on the merits of the case. The operative direction is to stay recovery.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pappinisseri Co-operative Rural Bank Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the recovery proceedings initiated against it. The dispute pertains to assessment years 2013-14 and 2017-18. The petitioner had filed appeals before the first appellate authority, which were pending. The core of the dispute relates to the applicability of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the petitioner. The High Court of Kerala was seized of the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether recovery proceedings can be initiated while an appeal is pending before the first appellate authority, particularly concerning the coverage of the petitioner under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that recovery should be stayed as appeals are pending before the first appellate authority. The issue of coverage under Section 80P is a matter to be adjudicated on the basis of the Full Bench decision in Mavilayil Service Co-operative Bank Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue regarding the stay of recovery or the merits of the Section 80P issue. The revenue was represented by its standing counsel.

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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1942 WP(C).No.9206 OF 2020 PETITIONER/S: PAPPINISSEERI CO-OPERATIVE RURAL BANK LIMITED NO-F 1321, KALLIASSERY.P.O, KANNUR-670562, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY M V VENUGOPALAN BY ADVS. DR.K.P.PRADEEP SMT.T.THASMI SMT.NOORUNISSA K.A. RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 2 INCOME TAX OFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS,KANNUR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, OFFICE OF ADDITIONAL/JOINT CIT, KONNOTHUMCHAL, CHOVVA.P.O, KANNUR-670006 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) KOZHIKODE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, MANACHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673001 OTHER PRESENT: R1 TO R3 BY SRI.CHRITOPHER ABRAHAM, SC, IT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- WP(C).9206 of 2020 - 2 - K. Vinod Chandran, J. --------------------------- W.P(C) No.9206 of 2020 --------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2020

JUDGMENT The writ petition is against the recovery initiated while an appeal is pending. The issue is also with respect to the coverage of the petitioner under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which has to be adjudicated on the basis of the Full Bench decision in Mavilayil Service Co

- operative Bank Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287 (FB)].

2.

In the present case, the demand is with respect to assessment years 2013-14 and 2017-18. Exhibit P2 and P2(a) are the appeals before the first appellate authority. In the circumstance of the case, I am of the opinion that there shall be a stay of recovery till the appeal is disposed of. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction, without any observation on the merits of the matter. K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Vku/-

WP(C).9206 of 2020 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO. AACAP2188H DATED 19.01.2016 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1 (A)OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2019-20/1022213028(1) DATED 12.12.2019 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2017- 18 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2OF THE APPEAL DATED 25.02.2016 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. EXHIBIT P2 (A)OF THE APPEAL DATED 18.01.2020 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 EXHIBIT P3OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO. PAN AACAP2188H/2013-14 DATED 19.01.2016 FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 (A)OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO ITBA/AST/S/156/2019-20/1022213148(1) DATED 12.12.2019 FOR THE AYER 2017-18 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4OF THE STAY APPLICATION FILED ON 14.03.2020 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN EXT. P2 SERIES OF APPEAL. []

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →