THE THACHAMPARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAKKAD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court quashed the conditional stay orders (Exts.P4 and P4(a)) passed by the 2nd respondent. The Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the appeals (Exts.P2 and P2(a)) within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the assessment orders were ordered to be kept in abeyance until the 2nd respondent passed orders on the appeals and communicated them to the petitioner. The reasoning was based on the precedent set by the Division Bench judgment in W.A.No.1639 of 2019 and connected cases, which was considered applicable to the present case involving deductions under Section 80P. The principle is that appellate authorities should not impose pre-deposit conditions for stay of recovery when a clear precedent exists for waiving such conditions in identical matters.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Thachampara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, challenged assessment orders (Exts.P1 and P1(a)) by filing appeals (Exts.P2 and P2(a)) before the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Along with these appeals, stay petitions were filed, which were disposed of by the 2nd respondent through conditional stay orders (Exts.P4 and P4(a)). The petitioner contended that in similar cases concerning deductions under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, in a judgment dated July 19, 2019 (Ext.P5), directed the first appellate authority to consider appeals without insisting on pre-deposit for stay of recovery. The present writ petition was filed seeking relief based on this precedent.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) erred in imposing conditions for stay of recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner, contrary to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in identical cases concerning Section 80P of the Income Tax Act? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the conditional stay orders (Exts.P4 and P4(a)) were unsustainable in light of the Division Bench judgment in W.A.No.1639 of 2019 and connected cases (Ext.P5). This judgment, according to the petitioner, directed the appellate authority to consider appeals without insisting on pre-deposit as a condition for stay of recovery in cases involving Section 80P deductions. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue's side regarding the imposition of conditions for stay or the applicability of the cited Division Bench judgment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Against Exts.P1 and P1(a) assessment orders under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Exts.P2 and P2(a) appeals before the 2nd respondent. Along with the appeals the petitioner had also preferred stay petitions, which came to be disposed by Exts.P4 and P4(a) conditional stay orders 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.1639 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.
I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Standing counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department.
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 Exts.P4 and P4(a) conditional stay orders and directing the 2nd
WP(C).No.28947 OF 2019(P) 3 respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P2 and P2(a) appeals 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 the assessment orders 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.28947 OF 2019(P) 4
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
More judgments on Section 80P
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Duddukuru Primary Agricultural Cooperative… vs ITO, Ward - 1, TadepalligudemITA 258/VIZ/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- Jijamata Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari… vs ITO Ward -1, BhandraITA 102/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shri Na vs Ari Khedut Sahkari Society Ltd…ITA 362/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
