KORATTY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/35283/2019HC KeralaKLHC01092082201920 December 2019Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, considering the facts and circumstances and the submissions made, disposed of the writ petition. The Court noted that in similar cases, it had directed the Appellate Authority to consider and pass orders on the appeals and had stayed the recovery of disputed amounts pending the disposal of the appeals. Accordingly, the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) was directed to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeals (Exts.P2 and P2(a)) within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Recovery steps for the amounts confirmed against the petitioner were to be kept in abeyance until orders were passed by the second respondent and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to produce a copy of the writ petition and the judgment before the second respondent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Koratty Service Co-operative Bank Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging assessment orders (Exts.P1 and P1(a)) passed by the Income Tax Officer. The petitioner had filed appeals (Exts.P2 and P2(a)) along with stay petitions (Exts.P3 and P3(a)) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the second respondent. The petitioner contended that despite pending stay petitions, recovery steps were being initiated by the respondents for the amounts confirmed in the assessment orders. The core issue in the appeal concerned the disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (though the judgment refers to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as the appellate authority) should be directed to consider and pass orders on the appeals filed by the petitioner, and stay recovery proceedings pending disposal of the appeals. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that recovery steps were being taken by the respondents even before the stay petitions were considered by the appellate authority. The issue involved in the appeal was the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue's side.

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 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941 WP(C).No.35283 OF 2019(I) PETITIONER/S: KORATTY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, KORATTY, THRISSUR-680308, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. SANIL KUMAR N.G. BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR SMT.HARIMA HARIHARAN SHRI.RAJATH R NATH RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN-680001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN-680001. OTHER PRESENT: SC JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.35283/19 2

JUDGMENT Against Exts.P1 and P1(a) assessment orders under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Exts.P2 and P2(a) appeals together with Exts.P3 and P3(a) stay petitions before the 2nd respondent. It is the submission of the petitioner that even prior to considering the stay petitions, recovery steps are taken by the respondents against the petitioner for recovery of the amounts confirmed by Exts.P1 and P1(a) assessment orders. 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 for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department. 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 cases, 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 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P2 and P2(a) appeals within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Recovery steps for recovery of the amounts confirmed against the petitioner 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

okb //// P.S. to Judge

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 07.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 07.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 19.12.2019 AGAINST EXT.P1. EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 19.12.2019 AGAINST EXT.P1(A) EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.12.2019 IN EXT.P1 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.12.2019 IN EXT.P1 APPEAL.

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →