AVANANKUZHI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/29934/2019HC KeralaKLHC01077808201907 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 (ITAT) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P4) within an outer time limit of six months. The Court also ordered that recovery steps pursuant to the demand notice (Ext.P6) for the amounts confirmed against the petitioner be kept in abeyance until the ITAT passes its orders and communicates them to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish a copy of the judgment and the writ petition to the ITAT. The Court noted that similar directions had been issued in analogous matters. The specific finding on the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P was not decided by the High Court, as the matter was disposed of on procedural grounds, directing the ITAT to adjudicate the appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Avanankuzhi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging recovery steps initiated by the respondents. The petitioner had preferred an appeal (Ext.P4) and a stay petition (Ext.P5) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against a rectified order (Ext.P3) passed under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner contended that recovery actions were being taken even before the ITAT could consider the stay petition. The issue in the appeal concerned the disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should be directed to consider and pass orders on the appeal filed by the petitioner within a specified timeframe. 2. Whether recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the rectified order should be stayed pending the disposal of the appeal by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that recovery steps were being pursued by the respondents despite the pendency of an appeal and a stay petition before the ITAT. The core issue in the appeal relates to the disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions from 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 THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1941 WP(C).No.29934 OF 2019(N) PETITIONER/S: AVANANKUZHI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO. 2387, AVANANKUZHI, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.S. JAYASREE, W/O. BIJU RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT VARUTHATTIL, MANGALATH KONAM, KATTACHALKUZHI P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SMT.SMITHA BABU RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695 003 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (4), OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003 SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.29934 OF 2019(N) 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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 appeal within an outer time limit of six months. Recovery steps pursuant to Ext.P6 demand notice for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE

WP(C).No.29934 OF 2019(N) 3

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED, 3.3.2016. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 5.3.2019. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MODIFIED ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 3.9.2019. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOCHI, DATED 4.11.2019. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOCHI, DATED 4.11.2019. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED , 25.10.2019. 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 →