THE KODUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS),
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court, taking note of a previous Division Bench judgment in W.A.No.1529/2019, which followed the Full Bench decision in 'The Mavilayi Service Cooperative Service Bank Ltd.'s case, held that the insistence for payment of a portion of the demanded amount as a condition for granting stay need not be insisted upon. The Court directed the first appellate authority to dispose of the appeal (Ext.P2) expeditiously and without delay, after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Furthermore, until final orders are passed on the appeal, all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order impugned in the appeal were ordered to be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide the merits of the claim under Section 80P(4) but focused on the procedural aspect of staying coercive recovery pending appeal.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Kodur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed its income tax return for the assessment year 2017-2018, claiming a benefit under Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act. The assessing authority disallowed this claim, leading to a demand of Rs. 2,69,06,960/-. While an appeal was pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Income Tax Officer initiated coercive steps for recovery. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition (Civil) seeking a mandamus to the appellate authority to consider the appeal on its merits and a stay on coercive proceedings until the appeal was decided.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioner, a co-operative bank, is liable to pay income tax assessed, considering the claim under Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act? (Question of law) - Assessee's contention: Relied on the Full Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in 'The Mavilayi Service Cooperative Service Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut' [2019 (2) KHC 287], arguing that the appellate authority should remand the matter for fresh inquiry and that insisting on payment pending appeal would cause hardship. - Revenue's contention: Argued that the insistence for part payment for granting a stay is within the discretion of the appellate authority and should not be interfered with by the High Court. 2. Whether coercive steps for recovery should be restrained pending the disposal of the appeal? - Assessee's contention: Coercive steps should be restrained until the appeal is decided on merits, citing the hardship and prejudice caused by such demands. - Revenue's contention: The Court should not interfere with the appellate authority's discretion regarding stay and part payment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT The averments in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: The petitioner Co-operative Bank furnished income tax returns for the period 2017-2018 and claimed the benefit under Sec. 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act. That the assessing authority disallowed the said claim and demanded tax for Rs. 2,69,06,960/-. The petitioner filed appeal in that regard before the 1st respondent, during the pendency of which appeal, the 2nd respondent has initiated coercive steps for recovery of the disputed amounts. It is in the above circumstances that the petitioner bank has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers: “1) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P2 appeal on merit and also restraining the respondents from initiating coercive proceedings against the petitioner society till orders are passed in Ext.P2 appeal on merit. 2) Grant such other reliefs which this Honourable court just and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
Heard Sri.O.D.Sivadas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner society and Sri.Christopher Abraham, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, Government of India, appearing for the respondents.
It is pointed by Sri.O.D.Sivadas, learned counsel appearing for WP(C).No.558 OF 2020(T) 3 the petitioner that the question regarding the liability of the banks like the petitioner co-operative bank to pay income tax assessed is a matter, which was answered by a Full Bench of this Court in the judgment in Income Tax Appeal, I.T.A.Nos.97/2016 and connected cases on 19.3.2019 {The Mavilayi Service Cooperative Service Bank Ltd., v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287]} Further that in view of the said dictum of the Full Bench of this Court, it is contended that the appellate authority can only remand the matter to the assessing authority for conducting fresh enquiry and hence it is urged that the insistence for making payment of any portion of the amount under demand, pending disposal of the appeal, may cause hardships and prejudices to the petitioner co-operative society concerned. Hence it is contended that, the insistence for making payment of any portion of the amount under demand, pending disposal of the appeal, may cause hardships and prejudices to the banks concerned.
Sri.Christopher Abraham, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, Government of India, appearing for the respondents would, on the other hand, urge that part payment insisted for granting stay is a matter, which comes within the discretion of the appellate authority and this Court may not be justified in interfering with discretion of the appellate authority in exercising such discretion of the statutory appellate authority.
WP(C).No.558 OF 2020(T) 4
However, it is seen that in similar cases it has already been ordered by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 1.7.2019 in W.A.No.1529/2019 that in the light of the aspects mentioned in the said case, their Lordships of the Division Bench of this Court are of the opinion that the insistence for payment of a portion of the amount demanded, as a condition for granting stay, need not be insisted in the case at hand and hence the Division Bench has ordered that it is for the appellate authority to take a decision on the statutory appeal at the earliest and that until final decision is rendered by the appellate authority in the statutory appeal, coercive steps for recovery and collection of the impugned tax is to be kept in abeyance in the light of the dictum laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.'s case supra. A copy of the abovesaid judgment dated 1.7.2019 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 1529/209 along with connected cases, has been made available for the perusal of this Court. Taking note of the said orders issued by the abovesaid Division Bench of this Court, it is ordered that the 1st appellate authority shall ensure final disposal of Ext.P-2 appeal after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner without much delay and within a reasonable time limit that may be fixed appropriately by the said appellate authority. However, in the interest of justice it is ordered that until final orders are passed disposing of Ext.P-2 appeal, all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order
WP(C).No.558 OF 2020(T) 5 impugned in the abovesaid appeal shall be kept in abeyance. With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE SKS
WP(C).No.558 OF 2020(T) 6
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
More judgments on Section 80P(4)
- Suvarnakarara Co-Operative Society Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, KarwarITA 210/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Suvarnakarara Co-Operative Society Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, KarawarITA 209/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Suvarnakarara Co-Operative Society Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, KarwarITA 208/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Vijapur Taluka Co-Operative Purchase… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, PatanITA 925/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Shri Gajanan Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha… vs ITO WD-2(1), KolhapurITA 2768/PUN/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026