THE CHITTUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 18 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/28951/2019HC KeralaKLHC01075292201930 October 2019Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, taking note of the Division Bench judgment cited by the petitioner, quashed the conditional stay order (Ext.P4). The Court directed the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) 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. Recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the assessment order were to be kept in abeyance until the 2nd respondent passed orders and communicated them to the petitioner. The principle derived is that appellate authorities should follow High Court directions regarding pre-deposit in identical matters, especially when a Division Bench has laid down a precedent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Chittur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed an appeal (Ext.P2) against an assessment order (Ext.P1) under the Income Tax Act. Along with the appeal, a stay petition was filed, which resulted in a conditional stay order (Ext.P4) from the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner contended that in similar cases concerning deductions under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, a Division Bench of the High Court had directed the appellate authority to consider appeals without insisting on pre-deposit for stay of recovery. The petitioner sought to quash the conditional stay order and have their appeal considered without such conditions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) was justified in imposing a pre-deposit as a condition for granting stay of recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner, in light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.1649 of 2019 and connected cases. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that in identical cases involving Section 80P deductions, the High Court had directed the appellate authority to pass orders on appeals without insisting on pre-deposit for stay of recovery. They relied on the Division Bench judgment dated 19.07.2019 in W.A.No.1649 of 2019 and connected cases (Ext.P5). 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1941 WP(C).No.28951 OF 2019(T) PETITIONER: THE CHITTUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 18 CHITTUR, PALAKKAD-678101, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NATARAJAN C., AGED 56, S/O.CHAMY K BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD-678014 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) 3RD FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, THRISSUR-680021 BY BADV.SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.28951 OF 2019(T) 2

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the 2nd respondent. Along with the appeal the petitioner had also preferred stay petition, which came to be disposed by Ext.P4 conditional stay order passed by the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that in identical cases involving the deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act a Division Bench of this Court has in the judgment dated 19.07.2019 in W.A.No.1649 of 2019 and connected cases (Ext.P5) directed the 1st appellate authority to consider and pass orders in the appeal without insisting on any pre-deposit as a condition for stay of recovery of the balance amounts confirmed against the assessee.

2.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Standing counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department.

3.

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar and taking note of the Division Bench judgment referred above, I dispose the Writ Petition by quashing Ext.P4 conditional stay order and directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal within an outer time limit

WP(C).No.28951 OF 2019(T) 3 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 the assessment order shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed and communicated to the petitioner. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE mns

WP(C).No.28951 OF 2019(T) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 28.12.2018 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 15.01.2019 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 15.01.2019 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.04.209 EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WA NO.1649/19 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 19.07.2019 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A 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 →