THE NAGARIPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/19725/2020HC KeralaKLHC01049658202024 September 2020Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) to consider and pass orders on the appeal filed by the petitioner within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Tribunal was also directed to hear the petitioner before passing the order. Furthermore, the Court made it clear that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by the assessment order and the First Appellate Authority's order shall be kept in abeyance until the Tribunal passes its orders and communicates them to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to produce a copy of the judgment and the writ petition before the Tribunal for further action.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Nagaripuram Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner was aggrieved by an assessment order (Ext.P1) and a subsequent order of the First Appellate Authority (Ext.P2) which rejected their appeal. The petitioner had filed a further appeal (Ext.P3) along with a stay petition (Ext.P4) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent). The core issue in the appeal pertained to the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act for Co-Operative Societies. The petitioner sought directions for the Tribunal to consider their appeal and stay recovery proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should be directed to consider and pass orders on the appeal filed by the petitioner regarding the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act in its application to Co-Operative Societies? 2. Whether recovery proceedings should be stayed pending the disposal of the appeal by the appellate authority? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the issue involved in their appeal is the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act for Co-Operative Societies. They relied on similar matters where the High Court had directed the appellate authority to consider appeals and granted a stay on recovery proceedings in the interim. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions 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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 2ND ASWINA, 1942 WP(C).No.19725 OF 2020(M) PETITIONER/S: THE NAGARIPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NAGARIPURAM, MANNUR, PALAKKAD-678 642, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GEETHA.K. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD-678 014. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THRISSUR-680 021. 3 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KAKKANADU, KOCHI-682 030, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. OTHER PRESENT: SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.19725 OF 2020(M) 2 JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority but the same was rejected by Ext.P2 order. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 appeal along with Ext.P4 stay petition before the 3rd respondent. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue involved in the appeal is the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act in its application to Co-Operative Societies. It is pointed out that in similar matters this Court has directed the appellate authority to consider and pass orders in the appeal and stayed the recovery proceedings, in the meanwhile. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar and the finding that in similar cases this Court has granted stay of recovery proceedings, pending disposal of the appeal by the appellate authority, I dispose the writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 appeal preferred by the petitioner within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. I also make it clear that till such time as orders are passed by the 3rd respondent in the appeal as directed above and the orders communicated to the petitioner, recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Exts.P1 and P2 orders shall be kept in abeyance. The

WP(C).No.19725 OF 2020(M) 3 petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment together with a copy of the writ petition before the 3rd respondent for further action.

Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE sd

WP(C).No.19725 OF 2020(M) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT 2014-15. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →