THE MANNARKKAD CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/28957/2019HC KeralaKLHC01075306201930 October 2019Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. It quashed the conditional stay order (Ext.P4) passed by the 2nd respondent. The Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) within six months from the date of receipt of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Recovery steps for amounts confirmed against the petitioner by the assessment order were to be kept in abeyance until the 2nd respondent passed orders on the appeal and communicated them to the petitioner. The reasoning was based on the Division Bench judgment (Ext.P5) which guided the disposal of the writ petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mannarkkad Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development 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 (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)). The petitioner contended that in identical cases concerning deductions under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, a Division Bench of the Kerala 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.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the conditional stay order (Ext.P4) passed by the 2nd respondent is liable to be quashed in light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.1649 of 2019 and connected cases (Ext.P5)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the conditional stay order is unsustainable because the Division Bench judgment in Ext.P5 directed the appellate authority to consider appeals without insisting on pre-deposit as a condition for stay of recovery in identical cases involving Section 80P deductions. The petitioner relied on the Division Bench judgment. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue regarding this issue.

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.28957 OF 2019(T) PETITIONER: THE MANNARKKAD CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD NO. P 934, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD- 678 582, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINIMOL.K., AGED 51, W/O. ANIL KUMAR BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO 4, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD - 678 014 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) 3RD FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, THRISSUR - 680 001 BY ADV.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.28957 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.28957 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.28957 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 2014-15 DATED 20.12.2019 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 11.01.2017 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014- 15 DATED 19.04.2019 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.10.2019 EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.A.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 →