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

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/32274/2019HC KeralaKLHC01084258201928 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 3rd respondent (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) to consider and pass orders on the appeal (Ext.P4) within an outer time limit of six months. The Court further directed that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance until such time as orders are passed by the ITAT and communicated to the petitioner. The reasoning for this direction was based on the Court's practice in similar matters where it had directed the Appellate Authority to consider and pass orders on appeals and stayed recovery of disputed amounts pending disposal. The specific finding on the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P was not decided by the High Court in this writ petition, as it was remitted to the ITAT for consideration.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Varkala Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging a rectified order under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner had preferred an appeal and a stay petition before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The petitioner contended that recovery steps were being taken by the respondents even before the stay petition was considered. The issue in the appeal concerned the disallowance of a deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner sought a direction for the ITAT to consider and pass orders on their appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to consider and pass orders on the appeal filed by the petitioner, and stay recovery proceedings pending disposal of the appeal? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that recovery steps were being initiated by the respondents despite an appeal and stay petition being filed before the ITAT. The core issue in the appeal was the disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner sought a direction for the ITAT to expedite the disposal of the appeal and to stay recovery of disputed amounts. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. The learned Standing Counsel appeared for the respondents.

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.32274 OF 2019(H) 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 695 003. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003. 3 THE REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, BLOCK NO. C1 AND C2, 1ST FLOOR, KAKKANAD, COCHIN 682 030. BY ADV.SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM,SC 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.32274 OF 2019(H) 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.32274 OF 2019(H) 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.32274 OF 2019(H) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2012-2013 DATED 23.03.2015. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.3.2018 IN ITA NO.19/TVM/TVM/CIT(A), TVM/2014-17 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.10.2019 IN ITA NO.19/TVM/CIT(A)/TVM/2015-16, 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 →