THE MANICKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1910 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/30068/2019HC KeralaKLHC01078442201908 November 2019Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR3 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 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 Tribunal and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish a copy of the judgment and the writ petition to the Tribunal. The Court noted that similar matters had resulted in directions for the Appellate Authority to consider appeals and stay recovery pending disposal. No specific issue was left undecided, as the court provided a procedural direction to expedite the appellate process.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Manickal 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) under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner contended that recovery steps were being initiated by the respondents even before the stay petition could be considered. The dispute 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.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate 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 argued that recovery steps were being taken prematurely, prior to the consideration of their stay petition by the Tribunal. They relied on the fact that the appeal pertains to the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by 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 FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1941 WP(C).No.30068 OF 2019(G) PETITIONER/S: THE MANICKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1910 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY , PIRAPPANCODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 607 BY ADVS. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2(3) OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN , KAWADIAR, 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, 1ST FLOOR, KAKKANAD, COCHIN - 682 030 SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.30068 OF 2019(G) 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 Government Pleader 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 for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 3 rd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment together with a copy of the writ petition before the 3 rd respondent for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE

WP(C).No.30068 OF 2019(G) 3

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2011-2012 DATED 24-11-2016. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17-12-2018 IN ITA NO.169/EF/TVM/CIT(A)/TVM/2017-18 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.09.2018 IN ITA NO.169/EF/TVM/TVM/CIT(A)/TVM/2017- 18, 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 AND CHELAN DATED 14.10.2019. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED ALONG WITH EXT-P4 APPEAL DATED 14.10.2019. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH COMPUTATION SHEET DATED 15.10.2019. sd

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →