M/S EAST ELERI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. V. ADDITIONAL/ JOINT/DEPUTY AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/25796/2021

AI Insights

The case involves M/s East Eleri Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., which challenged an assessment order disallowing benefits under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2018-2019. The bank had filed an appeal against this order, which was pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner apprehended coercive steps based on the assessment order and sought relief from the High Court. The court, referencing a similar case (Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others), directed the appellate authority to resolve the appeal in a timely manner and stayed all coercive actions based on the assessment order until the appeal was decided.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 686669 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others [2021 (1) KLT 485]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: A KUMAR; P J ANILKUMAR; G MINI; P S SREE PRASAD; AJAY ANAND
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment; Coercive Steps; Discretionary powers; Income Tax; Section 80P; Time Bound Manner
• Section: 80P

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 25796 OF 2021 PETITIONER: M/S EAST ELERI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. WARD 2/728 CHITTARIKKAL, KASARGOD -671326, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MR.JOSE PRAKASH. BY ADVS. A.KUMAR P.J.ANILKUMAR G.MINI(1748) P.S.SREE PRASAD AJAY V.ANAND RESPONDENTS: 1 ADDITIONAL/ JOINT/DEPUTY AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI-110001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI-110001. SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 25796 OF 2021 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J ------------------------ W.P.(C)No. 25796 of 2021 -------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2021 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. For the assessment year 2018-2019 the assessment was completed by the first respondent, disallowing the claim of benefits under Section 80P of the Act. Challenging the order of assessment, petitioner has preferred an appeal as Ext.P3 before the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that the said appeal is pending consideration and that, in the meantime, petitioner is apprehending coercive steps being taken. 2. Having regard to the fact that in similar cases were the claim for deduction under Section 80P of the Act is involved, this Court has been consistently directing the appeal itself to be disposed of, taking into reckoning the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. WP(C) NO. 25796 OF 2021 3 Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others [2021 (1) KLT 485], this writ petition can also be disposed of in similar lines. 3. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by Ext.P5, the assessing officer has demanded the petitioner to deposit 20% of the sum adjudged in Ext.P1 for the purpose of staying further proceedings for recovery. 4. It is a settled proposition that the Office Memorandum of 2016 as revised in 2017 cannot control the discretionary powers of the appellate authority. Since the appeal is pending consideration, Ext.P3 may not have any relevance for the time being, in view of the nature of orders I propose to issue in this case. 5. As mentioned earlier, in similar cases, this Court has directed the appeal to be disposed of in a time bound manner. Petitioner also stands in the same footing and there is no reason why a departure should be made from the other cases. WP(C) NO. 25796 OF 2021 4 6. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 appeal filed by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible in a time bound manner. Pending such consideration, all coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJ WP(C) NO. 25796 OF 2021 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25796/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 DATED 19.04.2021. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 19.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 28.05.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY DATED 01.11.2021. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN ITA NO.72/2019 AND CONNECTED CASE DATED 16.03.2021. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WRIT PETITION (C0 NO.10451/2021 DATED 27.04.2021. "