THE KECHERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.R286 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala, while acknowledging the submissions and the fact that similar matters had resulted in directions to the Appellate Authority to consider appeals without insisting on deposits, disposed of the writ petition. The Court quashed the conditional order of stay (Ext.P4) passed by the 2nd respondent. It directed the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the appeal (Ext.P2) within six months from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the assessment order (Ext.P1) were to be kept in abeyance until the 2nd respondent passed orders as directed and communicated them to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish copies of the writ petition and the judgment to the 2nd respondent.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Kechery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed an appeal (Ext.P2) along with a stay petition (Ext.P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent) against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Income Tax Officer (1st respondent). The 2nd respondent passed a conditional order of stay (Ext.P4), requiring the petitioner to deposit 20% of the disputed amount as a condition for staying the recovery of the balance pending the appeal's disposal. The petitioner contended that the issue in appeal concerned deductions allowable under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act and that this Court had previously directed Appellate Authorities to consider appeals without insisting on such deposits in similar cases.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Appellate Authority can impose a condition of depositing 20% of the disputed amount for granting a stay of recovery pending appeal, when the appeal concerns deductions under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 80P and principles of stay orders). Assessee's contentions: The issue in appeal is the deduction allowable under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. In similar cases, this Court has directed the Appellate Authority to consider and pass orders on the appeal without insisting on the deposit of any disputed amount as a condition for granting a stay of recovery pending appeal. Revenue's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment.
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 Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal together with Ext.P3 stay petition before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent by Ext.P4 order passed a conditional order of stay in the stay application directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the disputed amount as a condition for grant of stay of recovery of the balance amount pending disposal of the appeal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue involved in the appeal is the deduction allowable under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, and in similar cases, this Court has directed the Appellate Authority to consider and pass orders in the appeal without insisting on the deposit of any disputed amount as a condition for grant of stay of recovery of the assessed amount pending disposal of the appeal.
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 by quashing Ext.P4 conditional order, and directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. It is made clear that recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the 2nd respondent, for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE mns
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
More judgments on Section 80P
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Duddukuru Primary Agricultural Cooperative… vs ITO, Ward - 1, TadepalligudemITA 258/VIZ/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- Jijamata Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari… vs ITO Ward -1, BhandraITA 102/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shri Na vs Ari Khedut Sahkari Society Ltd…ITA 362/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026