VARKALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.161 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/32286/2019HC KeralaKLHC01084254201928 November 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.P4) within an outer time limit of six months. The Court also directed that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance until orders are passed by the Tribunal and communicated to the petitioner. This decision was based on the High Court's observation that in similar matters, it had directed the Appellate Authority to consider and pass orders on the appeal and stayed recovery of disputed amounts pending disposal. The specific finding on the merits of the Section 80P deduction disallowance was not made by the High Court, as the appeal was pending before the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Varkala Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed an appeal (Ext.P4) along with a stay petition (Ext.P5) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent) against a rectified order (Ext.P3). The petitioner contends that recovery steps are being initiated by the respondents even before the stay petition is considered. The core issue in the appeal concerns the disallowance of a deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner is represented by its Secretary-in-Charge, and the respondents are the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessment years are not explicitly stated in the judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should consider and pass orders on the appeal filed by the petitioner against the rectified order. 2. Whether recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the rectified order should be stayed pending the disposal of the appeal. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argues that recovery steps are being taken prematurely, before the stay petition is considered by the Tribunal. The issue in the appeal pertains to the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner relies on similar past orders from the High Court where directions were issued to the Appellate Authority to decide appeals and stay recovery pending disposal. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the revenue's side. However, the fact that recovery steps were being initiated implies their stance on upholding the assessment order.

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 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941 WP(C).No.32286 OF 2019(I) PETITIONER: VARKALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.161 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE, VARKALA P.O., CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 141. BY ADVS. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-PIN 695 003. 3 THE REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, BLOCK NO.C1 AND C2, IST FLOOR, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 030. BY ADV.SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.32286 OF 2019(I) 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

WP(C).No.32286 OF 2019(I) 3 pursuant 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. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE mns

WP(C).No.32286 OF 2019(I) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2014-2015 DATED 27.12.2016. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.6.2018 IN ITA NO.153/EF/TVM/CIT(A), TVM/2016-17 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.10.2019 IN ITA NO.153/TVM/CIT(A)/TVM/2016-17, 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 DATED 11.11.2019 AND CHELAN. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED ALONG WITH EXT.P4 APPEAL DATED 11.11.2019. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A 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 →