THE KANJIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F1199, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/32394/2019HC KeralaKLHC01084543201929 November 2019Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, while acknowledging the petitioner's submission regarding previous High Court orders in similar cases concerning Section 80P deductions, 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 petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) within six months from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. The Court further clarified that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the assessment order (Ext.P1) would be kept in abeyance until the 2nd respondent passes the order on the appeal and communicates it 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 Kanjikode Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed an appeal (Ext.P2) and 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 appeal. The petitioner submitted that the 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 insist on a deposit of a portion of the disputed tax as a condition for granting a stay of recovery pending appeal, when the appeal concerns deductions under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that in similar cases involving Section 80P deductions, this Court has directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal without demanding any deposit as a condition for stay. They relied on this Court's precedent. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue regarding this issue.

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 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941 WP(C).No.32394 OF 2019(Y) PETITIONER : THE KANJIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F1199, KANJIIKODE.P.O., KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD-678621, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GURU RAJALINGAM BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS : 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD - 678 014 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR - 680 021 BY SC, JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING : WPC.No.32394 of 2019 2

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.

2.

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 RKM

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WA NO.1649/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NOS.21015 AND 20995/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P6 A COPY OF JUDGMENT WP(C)NO.22496/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →