Loading High Court cases…
441 orders · Page 6 of 9
The High Court held that Exts.P5 and P6 are liable to be set aside. The Court noted the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, who conceded that the respondent had not considered the reply and documents filed by the petitioner. The Court found merit in the petitioner's contention that the principles of natural justice were violated. Therefore, the Court set aside Exts.P5 and P6. The respondent was directed to consider and finalize the notice issued under Section 148(1) (referring to Ext.P1 notice, though the section cited in the facts was 148(b)) after considering the objections raised by the petitioner along with the documents, in accordance with law, and to do so expeditiously, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court directed the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and dispose of the stay petition (Ext P3) expeditiously, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The Court also stipulated that if a conditional order of stay is proposed, reasons must be provided. Crucially, until an order is passed on the stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext P1) and the demand letter (Ext P4) are to be deferred. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the pending stay petition.
The High Court directed the second respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P3) expeditiously, and at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The petitioner was to be afforded an opportunity of being heard. The Court also stipulated that if the second respondent proposed to pass a conditional order of stay, reasons for the same must be stated. Crucially, until orders were passed on the stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) and the enforcement letter (Ext.P4) were to stand deferred. The Court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided, but the primary focus was on the procedural aspect of disposing of the stay petition.
The High Court acknowledged that the stay petitions filed by the petitioner (Exts.P10 to P13) were pending before the second respondent since April 26, 2023. Considering the pleadings and materials on record, the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with specific directions. The second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) was directed to consider and dispose of the stay petitions expeditiously, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The Court further stipulated that if the second respondent proposed to pass a conditional order of stay, reasons for the same must be stated. Crucially, until orders were passed on the stay petitions, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment orders (Exts.P1 to P4) and another order (Ext.P14) were directed to stand deferred. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court, exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, directed the first respondent (CBDT) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application (Ext P2) in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The Court noted that Ext P2 had been pending since January 5, 2019. Furthermore, until the CBDT takes a decision on Ext P2, all further proceedings pursuant to the intimation (Ext P4) disallowing deductions shall stand deferred. The Court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided, but the primary focus was on the procedural direction to consider the pending application.
The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition by directing the 1st respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider the stay petition (Ext.P4) filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of two months. The Court further ordered that coercive proceedings pursuant to the demand notice (Ext.P5) shall be kept in abeyance until the 1st respondent passes orders on the stay petition. The judgment does not decide the validity of the assessment order itself, nor does it delve into the merits of the appeal. The primary focus was on providing interim relief to the petitioner pending the decision on his stay application.
The High Court directed the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P3) in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The petitioner was to be afforded an opportunity of being heard. The court also stipulated that if the second respondent proposed to pass a conditional order of stay, reasons for the same must be stated. Crucially, until orders were passed on the stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) were to be kept in abeyance. The court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the appeal.
The High Court of Kerala, in its writ jurisdiction, allowed the writ petition. It set aside the impugned assessment order (Ext.P3) and penalty notice (Ext.P4) for the assessment year 2018-19. The Court remanded the matter back to the Assessing Authority for a fresh consideration. This reconsideration is to be conducted in accordance with the findings of the Full Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.23/2018, dated 01.08.2022, which held that the assessee is entitled to allowance in respect of the cost of replacement of dead and useless rubber trees under Rule 7A(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The ratio decidendi is that where a specific issue has been authoritatively decided by a higher judicial forum (like the ITAT Full Bench), subsequent assessments concerning the same issue should follow that precedent, and if not, the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication based on the precedent.
The High Court directed the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and dispose of the stay petition (Ext.P3) expeditiously, and at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The petitioner was to be afforded an opportunity of being heard. The Court also stipulated that if a conditional order of stay was proposed, the reasons for it must be stated. Crucially, until orders were passed on the stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 (the impugned order) and Ext.P5 were to be deferred. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the stay petition.
The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent) to consider and dispose of the stay petition (Ext.P3) expeditiously and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. The petitioner was to be afforded an opportunity of being heard. The Court clarified that if a conditional order of stay was proposed, the reasons for it must be stated. Until the disposal of the stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) and the letter for realization of arrears (Ext.P4) were to stand deferred. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the pending stay petition.
The High Court directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and dispose of the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P4) expeditiously, within two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of the judgment, after providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. If a conditional stay order was proposed, the reasons for it were to be stated. Furthermore, all further proceedings pursuant to the penalty order (Ext.P1) and the demand notice (Ext.P2) were to be kept in abeyance until an order was passed on the stay petition. The court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself.
The High Court directed the second respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) to consider and dispose of the stay petition (Ext P3) expeditiously, in accordance with the law, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The petitioner was to be afforded an opportunity of being heard. The Court further stipulated that if the second respondent proposed to pass a conditional order of stay, reasons for the same must be provided. Crucially, until orders were passed on the stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext P1) and the implementation letter (Ext P4) were to be kept in abeyance. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of their expeditious disposal and the interim relief pending decision.
The High Court directed the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and dispose of the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P11) expeditiously, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The court also stipulated that if the 2nd respondent proposed to pass any conditional interim order or stay, reasons for the same must be stated. Furthermore, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P2) were ordered to be kept in abeyance until orders were passed on the stay petition. The court clarified that this direction to dispose of the stay petition would not preclude the 2nd respondent from considering and disposing of the appeal (Ext.P3) as well, in accordance with law. The judgment did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the appeal.
The High Court of Kerala, after considering the pleadings and materials on record, and noting that the appeal (Ext.P4) and delay petition (Ext.P5) were already pending, deemed it appropriate to direct the respondents to provide the link to the petitioner to upload the stay petition (Ext.P7). The Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions: (i) The respondents must provide the link for uploading Ext.P7. (ii) The respondents must consider and dispose of Ext.P5 and Ext.P7 expeditiously and in accordance with law. (iii) Further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) and demand notice (Ext.P2) shall be kept in abeyance until orders are passed on Exts.P5 and P7. The ratio decidendi is that procedural access to filing necessary applications for relief, such as a stay petition, should not be obstructed, and pending applications should be considered promptly.
The High Court of Kerala directed the 2nd/3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre) to consider and dispose of the stay petition (Ext.P3) in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The court also mandated that reasons must be provided for the decision on the stay petition. Furthermore, until an order is passed on the stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 and P7 were to be kept in abeyance. The court did not explicitly mention the disposal of the appeal (Ext.P2) itself, focusing primarily on the stay petition.
The High Court directed the third respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), or any other competent authority, to consider and dispose of the appeal (Ext.P5) in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P4) shall be kept in abeyance until orders are passed on the appeal. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the grounds of appeal, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of timely disposal.
The High Court held that the 48-hour time period fixed by the respondent in Ext. P1 notice was too short for the petitioner to submit a reply with adequate materials to substantiate his defence. Consequently, the Court found it necessary to grant the petitioner an extension of time. The Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directed the respondent to accept the petitioner's reply, if filed with supporting materials, within one month from May 16, 2023. The respondent was further directed to consider and finalize the Ext. P1 show cause notice after considering the petitioner's reply in accordance with law. The Court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. The 2nd respondent (NFAC) was directed to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P3) within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. This consideration must include hearing the petitioner and affording them an opportunity to be heard. The Court further directed that recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petition. The order to be passed by the 2nd respondent on the stay petition must be a reasoned one, addressing the petitioner's contentions regarding the existence of a prima facie case for granting a stay pending the appeal's disposal. No specific issue was left undecided.
The High Court disposed of the appeal, recording that the issue was settled. However, liberty was granted to the Revenue to re-open the appeal if the assessee fails to comply with the settlement scheme's conditions.
The High Court held that the 48-hour time period granted by the respondent in Ext.P1 notice was too short for the petitioner to submit a reply with adequate materials to substantiate his defence. Consequently, the Court directed that the petitioner be granted at least one month's time from May 16, 2023, to submit his reply with supporting materials. The respondent was directed to accept the reply if filed within this extended period and to consider and finalize the show-cause notice after adverting to the petitioner's reply in accordance with law. The Court exercised its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to dispose of the writ petition.
The High Court, having considered the submissions of both the petitioner and the respondents, was of the opinion that the writ petition itself could be disposed of with a direction. The court directed the 2nd respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi) to consider and pass orders on the stay petition (Ext P3) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Until such time, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner were to be kept in abeyance. The court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the appeal.
The High Court found the petitioner's request to be reasonable. Accordingly, the court directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to pass orders on the stay application (Ext.P3) within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the court ordered that all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) would be kept in abeyance until such orders on the stay application were passed. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. The court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, but rather directed the appellate authority to consider the stay application.
The High Court found the assessee's request to be reasonable. Consequently, the Court directed the third respondent (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) to pass orders on the stay application (Ext.P5) and the delay petition (Ext.P4) within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) would be kept in abeyance until such orders are passed by the ITAT. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. The judgment did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, only directing the ITAT to consider them.
The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (1st respondent) to take up the stay petition (Ext. P3) filed by the petitioner and pass orders thereon expeditiously. Furthermore, the Court ordered that recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext. P1) shall be deferred until the stay petition is decided. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the validity of the assessment order itself. The principle established is that appellate authorities should expedite decisions on stay petitions to prevent premature recovery actions, and recovery should be deferred pending such decisions.
The High Court directed the 1st respondent to provide the petitioner with a link to upload a stay application in their pending appeal (Ext. P4) expeditiously. Upon receiving the link, the petitioner was to upload the stay application within one week. The 1st respondent was then directed to consider the stay petition within one month, after hearing the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders. Until such orders were passed, all coercive steps pursuant to the assessment order (Ext. P1) were to be kept in abeyance. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
The High Court of Kerala directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to expeditiously take up and pass orders on the stay petition (Ext. P3). Furthermore, the Court ordered that recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext. P1) shall be deferred until such time as the stay petition is decided. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of deferring recovery pending the stay application.
The High Court directed the 2nd respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) to consider the stay petition within three months from the date of the order. Until orders were passed on the stay petition, all coercive steps against the petitioner were to be kept in abeyance. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. The court did not decide the merits of the assessment order or the appeal itself, but rather focused on ensuring the appeal and stay application were considered promptly and providing interim relief against coercive actions.
The High Court admitted the writ petition and directed the second respondent (National E-Assessment Center) to take up the appeals (Exts.P3 and P4) and stay petitions (Exts.P5 and P6) filed by the petitioner. The court ordered that these petitions be heard and disposed of within two months. Furthermore, the court ordered that coercive steps for recovery of the demand arising from the assessment orders (Exts.P1 and P2) shall be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the stay petitions. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment orders or the appeals themselves, focusing solely on the procedural direction for their consideration and a temporary stay on recovery.
The High Court of Kerala, in its limited prayer, directed the 2nd respondent, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, to take up the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) and stay petition (Ext.P3) for hearing and disposal. The court ordered that the stay petition should be disposed of within two months. Furthermore, the court directed that coercive steps for recovery of the demand shall be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the stay petition. The judgment does not address the merits of the appeal or the assessment order itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of timely disposal. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court of Kerala allowed the writ petition and set aside Ext.P16. The Court found merit in the petitioner's contention regarding procedural improprieties. The reasoning was based on the acknowledgment by the Standing Counsel for the respondents that there were procedural irregularities. The ratio decidendi is that orders passed in violation of natural justice, particularly the right to a hearing, are liable to be set aside. The operative direction was that the respondents shall pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioner within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court admitted the writ petition and directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to take up the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) and stay petition (Ext.P3). The Tribunal's decision was to hear and dispose of the stay petition within two months from the date of the order. Furthermore, the Court ordered that coercive steps for recovery of tax shall be kept in abeyance until the stay petition is disposed of. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the assessment order, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of timely disposal.
The High Court admitted the writ petition and directed the 2nd respondent, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, to take up the pending appeal (Ext.P2) and the stay petition (Ext.P3). The Tribunal was instructed to hear and dispose of the stay petition within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, coercive steps for recovery of demand were to be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the stay petition. No specific finding was made on the merits of the assessment order or the appeal itself, as the prayer was limited to a direction for expeditious disposal.
The High Court held that the issue of levying late filing fees under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is no longer res integra. The Court referred to its own judgment in W.P.(C.) No. 37715/2018, which was confirmed by a Division Bench in W.A. No. 722/2019. A learned Single Judge had also followed these precedents in W.P.(C.) No. 1259/2022 concerning a similarly situated person. The Court found no reason to deviate from the established position. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the intimations (Exts. P1 to P8) were quashed to the extent they demanded late fee under Section 234E.
The High Court did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it directed the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) and stay petition (Ext.P3) expeditiously, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also ordered that no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the disposal of the appeal. The primary finding is procedural: the pending appeal and stay petition need to be adjudicated promptly. The ratio is that when an appeal and stay petition are pending before the appellate authority, the High Court may direct expeditious disposal and grant interim protection.
The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the assessment order (Ext.P5). The Court found no reason to deviate from the established principle that Supreme Court judgments must be considered and applied by assessing authorities. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v CIT and a subsequent Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court. The respondents were directed to reconsider the case and pass a fresh assessment order, ensuring that all relevant judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Court are taken into account. No specific issue was left undecided; the entire assessment order was quashed and remanded for fresh consideration.
The High Court did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (respondent 3) to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) and stay petition (Ext.P3) expeditiously, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also ordered that no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the disposal of the appeal. The specific finding on the Section 80P deduction and the ratio decidendi are not determined by this order, as it is procedural.
The High Court of Kerala, in its limited writ jurisdiction, disposed of the writ petition by issuing a direction to the 2nd respondent, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The court directed the 2nd respondent to take up the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) and stay petition (Ext.P3) and to hear and dispose of the stay petition within two months from the date of the order. Furthermore, the court ordered that coercive steps for recovery of any demand shall be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the stay petition. The court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the assessment order itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of ensuring a timely hearing for the stay petition.
The High Court of Kerala allowed the writ petition. The Court found merit in the petitioner's submission that the appellate order (Ext.P4) was passed without providing them an opportunity of being heard. The Court noted that the notice for the appeal proceedings was sent to an incorrect email ID, even though the correct one was on record. The standing counsel for the revenue conceded that the appeal could be reconsidered. Consequently, the Court set aside Ext.P4 and directed the 1st respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioner and pass fresh orders in accordance with law. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned. The judgment did not leave any issue undecided.
The High Court of Kerala, while not entertaining the writ petition directly after five years from the rejection of the deduction claim, found that the interest of justice would be served by permitting the petitioner to file an appeal. The Court noted that the petitioner had pursued the remedy of rectification after obtaining Section 12A registration. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the rejection of the deduction claim. If such an appeal, along with a petition for condonation of delay, is filed within two weeks from the date of the order, it shall be considered by the competent authority, keeping in mind the fact situation. The Court did not decide on the merits of the claim itself but facilitated the appeal process.
The High Court did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it deemed it fit to dispose of the writ petition by directing the third respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's pending appeal (Ext.P2) and stay petition (Ext.P3) expeditiously. The court ordered that these be considered within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the court directed that no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the disposal of the appeal. The specific finding on the Section 80P deduction and the validity of the assessment order were left undecided by the High Court.
The High Court admitted the writ petition and noted the contentions of the petitioner. However, the Court found that the petitioner's contention regarding the non-supply of a draft assessment order under Section 144 was not justified, as the petitioner could not be treated as an eligible assessee under Section 144C(15). The Court observed that factual aspects were involved and that the petitioner had a statutory remedy available. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy by approaching the appropriate authority with an appeal. The Court further stipulated that if an appeal was filed within two weeks, it would be considered and orders issued within four months, with coercive steps against the petitioner kept in abeyance until the disposal of the appeal. The Court did not decide on the merits of the reassessment or the opportunity of hearing.
The High Court of Kerala held that the issue of demanding late filing levy under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is no longer res integra, meaning it has already been decided. The Court referred to its own judgment in W.P.(C.) No. 37715/2018, which was upheld by a Division Bench in W.A. No. 722/2019, and a subsequent Single Judge's decision in W.P.(C.) No. 1259/2022 that followed these precedents. The Court found no reason to deviate from the established legal position. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the intimations (Exts. P1 to P12) were quashed to the extent they demanded late fee under Section 234E. The operative direction was the quashing of the impugned levy.
The High Court of Kerala held that the issue of levying late filing fee under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was no longer res integra, meaning it had already been decided. The Court referred to its own judgment in W.P.(C.) No.37715/2018, which was upheld by a Division Bench in W.A. No.722/2019. Furthermore, a learned Single Judge had followed these judgments in a case involving a similarly situated person in W.P.(C.) No.1259/2022. Finding no reason to deviate from these established precedents, the Court allowed the writ petition. The intimations (Exts.P1 to P4) were quashed to the extent they demanded late fee under Section 234E. The ratio decidendi is that the levy of late fee under Section 234E is impermissible based on the High Court's prior rulings.
The High Court of Kerala noted that the petitioner, Pariyaram Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., has already availed the statutory remedy by filing an appeal (Ext.P2) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (respondent 3). Therefore, the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Appellate Authority to consider and pass orders on the appeal at the earliest. The Court also granted interim relief by directing the respondents not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the disposal of the appeal. The substantive issue regarding the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P was not decided on merits by the High Court, as the matter was pending before the appellate authority.
The High Court, in view of the limited prayer made by the petitioner, disposed of the writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent (NFAC) to first take up and pass orders on the delay condonation petition (Ext. P8). Upon condoning the delay, the NFAC was directed to consider and dispose of the stay petitions (Exts. P6 and P7) filed along with the appeals (Exts. P3 and P4) within two months. Furthermore, the Court ordered that coercive steps for recovery pursuant to the demand notice (Ext. P2) shall be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the stay petitions. The judgment did not delve into the merits of the appeals or the reasons for the delay.
The High Court of Kerala noted that the petitioner, Koratty Service Co-operative Bank Limited, had already availed the statutory remedy by filing an appeal (Ext.P2) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Therefore, the Court did not delve into the merits of the assessment order or the applicability of Section 80P. The Court's decision was procedural. The writ petition was disposed of by directing the Appellate Authority (3rd respondent) to consider and pass orders on the appeal at the earliest. Additionally, the Court directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the appeal is disposed of. The specific finding on the validity of the assessment order or the interpretation of Section 80P was left to the appellate authority.
The High Court of Kerala, in this writ petition, did not adjudicate on the merits of the claim for deduction under Section 80P. The Court noted that the petitioner had already availed the statutory remedy by filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of by directing the Appellate Authority to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal at the earliest. The Court also directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order until the disposal of the appeal. The substantive issue regarding the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P, based on the Supreme Court judgment, was left to be decided by the appellate authority.
The High Court of Kerala did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it noted that the petitioner had already availed the statutory remedy by filing an appeal (Ext.P2) before the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)). Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of by directing the Appellate Authority to consider and pass orders on the appeal at the earliest. The Court also directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the appeal is disposed of. The specific finding on the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P was left to be decided by the appellate authority.
The High Court held that no further orders were required in the writ petition since the assessments had been completed and orders had been issued. The Court noted the submission made by the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition was closed. The closure was made without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and their right to challenge the assessment orders. This means the petitioner retains the ability to pursue other legal remedies, such as filing an appeal against the assessment orders, if they are aggrieved by them. The High Court did not delve into the merits of the assessment proceedings themselves.
The High Court of Kerala held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not permissible. The Court found that the issue was no longer res integra, as it had been conclusively decided by this Court in W.P.(C.) No. 37715/2018, which was subsequently confirmed by a Division Bench in W.A. No. 722/2019. A learned Single Judge had also followed these judgments in a similar case. Therefore, the Court saw no reason to deviate from the established precedent. The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned default summaries, intimations, and demand notice were quashed to the extent they demanded late fee under Section 234E.