THE PULLAMPARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK.LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/31276/2019HC KeralaKLHC01081817201920 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 petitioner's appeal (Ext.P4) within an outer time limit of six months. The Court further ordered that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the rectified order (Ext.P3) shall be kept in abeyance until such time as orders are passed by the Tribunal and communicated to the petitioner. The reasoning was based on the Court's practice in similar matters where it had directed the Appellate Authority to consider appeals and stayed recovery pending disposal. The specific finding on the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P was not addressed as the writ petition was disposed of on procedural grounds.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Pullampara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner had preferred 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 contended that recovery steps were being initiated by the respondents even before the stay petition could be considered. The core issue in the appeal concerned the disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of their appeal and a stay on recovery proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal within a specified timeframe, and stay recovery proceedings pending disposal of the appeal. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that recovery steps were being taken by the revenue despite the pendency of their appeal and stay petition before the Tribunal. They relied on previous orders of the High Court in similar matters where directions were issued for the disposal of appeals and stay of recovery. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. The learned Government Pleader 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019/29TH KARTHIKA, 1941 W.P(C).No.31276 OF 2019(H) PETITIONER: THE PULLAMPARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK. LTD NO.2429, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BY ITS SECRETARY, MUKKUDIL P.O, VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT -695 607 BY ADVS.SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(3), OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWADIAR 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, 1ST FLOOR, KAKKANAD, COCHIN- 682 030. BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.31276/2019 : 2 :

J U D G M E N T 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

W.P.(C).No.31276/2019 : 3 : 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 itself within an outer time limit of six months. Recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P3 rectified order 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 prp/19/11/19

W.P.(C).No.31276/2019 : 4 :

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2011-2012 DATED 24.11.2017. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2018 IN ITA NO.120/EF/TVM/CIT(A)/TVM/2017-18 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.09.2019 IN ITA NO.120/EF/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 DATED 30.10.2019 AND CHELAN. EXHIBIT P5 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED ALONG WITH EXT P4 APPEAL DATED 30.10.2019. NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. 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 →