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

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.19755 OF 2020(T) PETITIONER/S: THE NAGARIPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NAGARIPURAM,MANNUR,PALAKKAD-678642, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,GEETHA.K. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2,AYAKAR BHAVAN,PALAKKAD-678014. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), THRISSUR-680021. 3 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AYAKAR BHAVAN,KAKKANADU, KOCHI-682030,REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. OTHER PRESENT: GP DR. THUSHARA JAMES 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.19755 OF 2020(T) 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

WP(C).No.19755 OF 2020(T) 3 against the petitioner by Exts.P1 and P2 orders shall be kept in abeyance. The 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 SJ

WP(C).No.19755 OF 2020(T) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT 2015-16 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.