THE MALA BLOCK TOWN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),

Being an Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, the petitioner duly furnished income tax return for the financial year 2017-18 and claimed the benefit under Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On initiation of the proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act, the assessing officer found the total income of the petitioner Society for the relevant year as Rs.3,21,69,250/-. Accordingly, the assessing authority issued Ext.P1 order dated 25.2.2019, declining the claim for deduction as sought under Section 80P(2) of the Income Tax Act and demanded tax for Rs.1,50,25,014/-. The petitioner Society preferred Ext.P2 statutory appeal on 23.1.2020. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner also preferred Ext.P3 application under Section 220(6) of the Act before the second respondent. The said application has been disposed of vide Ext.P4 order dated 30.1.2020 staying further recovery on deposit of 20% of the demanded tax. Ext.P5 Review Petition dated 7.2.2020 also result into dismissal vide order dated 19.2.2020. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in the review petition, the amount of 20% of the demanded tax has been reduced to 10%. But, the petitioner is not in a position to deposit 10% and the same not sustainable. The petitioner has good point within the parameters of Section 80P, claiming exemption for payment of the tax and it would be satisfied in case an appropriate direction is issued for deciding the appeal within a reasonable time.

Mr.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the petitioner has not bonafidely approached this Court. In order to circumvent the order of deposit of 10% of the demanded tax, the petitioner prays for disposal of the appeal. The petitioner Society is claiming exemption, after obtaining an order on either way, and approached this Court with similar directions.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book, I am in agreement with the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the order of imposition of the condition of 20% of the demanded tax reduced to 10% has not been complied with by the petitioner. The petitioner has approached this Court for disposal of the appeal. Though many appeals are pending and no special circumstances have been made out to take up the appeal out of turn, I am not entertaining this Writ Petition. However, in order to prevent miscarriage of justice, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the appeal. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to decide Ext.P2 appeal as expeditiously as possible, within a period of two months. In case the petitioner deposits 10% of the amount, there shall be an interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 till the disposal of the appeal. AMIT RAWAL JUDGE csl