BALARAMAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. 14 vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/30760/2019HC KeralaKLHC01080322201914 November 2019Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the 4th respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P3) within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also ordered that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by the assessment order (Ext.P2) shall be kept in abeyance until such time as orders are passed by the 4th respondent and communicated to the petitioner. The High Court's decision was based on the precedent of similar cases where it had directed the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal and stayed recovery proceedings. No specific finding was made on the merits of the Section 80P deduction disallowance, as the appeal was pending.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Balaramapuram Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition was filed against an assessment order (Ext.P2) passed under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner had preferred an appeal (Ext.P3) and a stay petition (Ext.P5) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the 4th respondent. The core dispute in the appeal concerned the disallowance of a deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The High Court heard arguments from both the petitioner and the respondents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should be directed to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal against the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act? 2. Whether recovery proceedings for amounts confirmed by the assessment order should be stayed pending the disposal of the appeal by the first appellate authority? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, through its counsel, sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of its appeal and a stay on recovery proceedings. The petitioner relied on the fact that in identical circumstances, the High Court had previously directed the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal and stayed recovery pending disposal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue. However, the revenue was represented by the learned Government Pleader.

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 THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 23RD KARTHIKA, 1941 WP(C).No.30760 OF 2019(T) PETITIONER/S: BALARAMAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. 14 BP 7/623, VIZHINJAM ROAD, BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 501, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY A. JAFEER KHAN. BY ADVS. DR.K.P.PRADEEP SRI.SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.NEENA ARIMBOOR SRI.T.T.BIJU SMT.T.THASMI SMT.NANDINI R.S. RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, INCOME TAX, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560500. 3 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2) - RANGE 2, AYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX, KOWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003. 4 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, AYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, KOWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003. BY ADV.SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.30760 OF 2019(T) 2

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P2 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 appeal and Ext.P5 stay petition before the 4th respondent. The issue involved in the appeal is the dis-allowance of the deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act.

2.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar and taking note of the fact that in identical circumstances this Court has directed the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal preferred by the assessee and has stayed the recovery proceedings pending disposal of the appeal by the First Appellate Authority, I direct the 4th respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 appeal 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 amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P2 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 4th respondent as directed and orders communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE

WP(C).No.30760 OF 2019(T) 3

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN OF INCOME DATED 31.12.2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 IN PAN AABAB5082D. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION AND ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITH NO. AABAB5082D/2018-19 DATED 29.6.2019 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 23.7.2019 FILED FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO PAN AABAB5082D/2018-19 DATED 3.9.2019 FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION FILED ON 4.10.2019 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN EXT. P3 APPEAL. sd

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →