THE PANACHIKKADU REGIONAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.3959 vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/1913/2020HC KeralaKLHC01005566202023 January 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS6 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, taking note of a previous Division Bench order in W.A.No.1529/2019 which was in light of the Full Bench judgment in Mavilayi Service Cooperative 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 in this case. The Court directed the first appellate authority to ensure the final disposal of the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) without much delay, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Crucially, until the final order disposing of the appeal is passed, 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 appeal itself but provided interim relief.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Panachikkadu Regional Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. 3959, filed its income tax returns for assessment year 2017-2018, claiming a benefit under Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act. The assessing authority disallowed this claim, demanding tax of Rs. 77,67,680/-. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). While the appeal was pending, the Income Tax Officer initiated coercive recovery proceedings for the disputed amount. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition (Civil) seeking a mandamus to the appellate authority to consider the appeal on merits and to restrain coercive steps until the appeal was decided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner co-operative bank is liable to pay income tax, considering the Full Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Service Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut [2019 (2) KHC 287]? (Question of law) 2. Whether the insistence on payment of a portion of the disputed tax amount as a condition for granting a stay pending appeal is justified? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the Full Bench judgment in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Service Bank Ltd. dictates the outcome of their appeal, and any insistence on payment pending appeal would cause hardship. They relied on the dictum of the Full Bench. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue contended that the insistence for part payment for granting stay falls within the discretion of the appellate authority, and the High Court should not interfere with this discretion.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P(4)

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 ALEXANDER THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 3RD MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.1913 OF 2020(L) PETITIONER/S: THE PANACHIKKADU REGIONAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.3959 CHANNANIKKADU P. O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AYAKAR BHAVAN, PEROORKADA ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003. 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD (3), KOTTAYAM - 686 001. OTHER PRESENT: SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.1913 OF 2020(L) 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C.) No. 1913 of 2020 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2020

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. 77,67,680/-. 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 restrianing 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.”

2.

Heard Sri.O.D.Sivadas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner society and Sri.Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, Government of India, appearing for the respondents.

WP(C).No.1913 OF 2020(L) 3

3.

It is pointed by Sri.O.D.Sivadas, learned counsel appearing for 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.

4.

Sri.Jose Joseph, 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

WP(C).No.1913 OF 2020(L) 4 authority.

5.

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

WP(C).No.1913 OF 2020(L) 5 appeal, all coercive steps for the enforcement of the assessment order 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.1913 OF 2020(L) 6

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2017-18. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 16.1.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2017-18.

More judgments on Section 80P(4)

All 1,638 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P(4) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →