INDIA COFFEE BOARD WORKERS CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.NO.4227, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/29779/2019HC KeralaKLHC01077652201906 November 2019Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a specific direction to the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Appellate Authority was directed to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording the petitioner a hearing. Furthermore, recovery steps for amounts confirmed against the petitioner by the assessment order (Ext.P1) were ordered to be kept in abeyance until the Appellate Authority passed its orders and communicated them to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish copies of the writ petition and the judgment to the Appellate Authority for further action.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. India Coffee Board Workers' Co-op. Society Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenged an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Income Tax Officer. The petitioner had preferred an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P2(a)) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the second respondent. The core issue in the appeal concerned a deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner pointed out that the High Court had previously directed the Appellate Authority to consider appeals in similar matters and had stayed recovery proceedings in the interim.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal against the assessment order, and in the interim, stay recovery proceedings. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that in similar cases, the High Court had directed the Appellate Authority to expedite the appeal process and had granted a stay on recovery. They sought a similar direction and interim relief. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents appeared and made submissions. However, the specific contentions of the revenue are not detailed in the judgment.

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 WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019/15TH KARTHIKA, 1941 W.P(C).No.29779 OF 2019(V) PETITIONER: M/S.INDIA COFFEE BOARD WORKERS' CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.NO.4227, MACHINGAL LANE,VELIYANNUR,WEST SAKTHAN BUS STAND,P.B.NO.184,M.G.ROAD,THRISSUR-680 021, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SHRI.C.D.SURESH. BY ADVS.SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.NISHA JOHN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, WARD – 2(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR,THRISSUR-680 001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN,SHAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.29779/2019 : 2 :

J U D G M E N T Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P2(a) stay petition before the 2nd respondent. It is stated that the issue covered by the appeal pertains to the deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. It is pointed out that in similar matters, this Court has directed the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal and stayed the recovery proceedings in the meanwhile.

2.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I dispose the writ petition with a direction to 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 W.P.(C).No.29779/2019 : 3 : petitioner. 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, and the orders 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 prp/6/11/19

W.P.(C).No.29779/2019 : 4 :

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 10.10.2019 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 23.10.2019 E-FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2(A): TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 21.10.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →