THE EDATHIRUTHY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO F 1045 V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

WP(C)/19856/2021

AI Insights

The case involves the Edathiruthy Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., which contested an assessment order that disallowed their claim under Section 80P(2) of the Income Tax Act, leading to a substantial tax demand. The bank appealed this decision to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), but the appeal was still pending. Fearing immediate coercive actions based on the assessment order, the bank sought judicial intervention for an expedited appeal process. The court referenced a similar case (Ext.P3) where it had directed the appellate authority to resolve such disputes without the appellant having to pay a percentage of the assessed tax. The court's decision aimed to provide the bank relief from immediate financial burden while ensuring that the appeal process was not unduly delayed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 686627 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: WPC No 18004 of 2021
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: O D SIVADAS
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment; Co-operative Society; Coercive Steps; Early disposal; Income Tax
• Section: 143(3); 80P(2); 80P(4)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 19856 OF 2021 PETITIONER: THE EDATHIRUTHY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO F 1045 KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 703, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BY ADV O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AYAKAR BHAVAN, SHAKTAN NAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN-680 001. 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), SHAKTAN NAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN-680 001. SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 19856 OF 2021 -2- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. =============================== W .P .(C) No.19856 of 2021 =============================== Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2021 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a co-operative society, who claimed the benefit under Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act. By the order dated 17.12.2019, the assessing officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act and disallowed the claim under Section 80P(2) of the Act. A demand for a huge amount has already been made against the petitioner. 2. Challenging the order of assessment, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the first respondent. The said appeal is produced as Ext.P2. It is submitted that the appeal is pending consideration. However, apprehending coercive steps that may be initiated, pursuant to Ext.P1 WP(C) NO. 19856 OF 2021 -3- assessment order, petitioner seeks for a direction for an early disposal of Ext.P2 appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Adv.O.D.Sivadas as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents Sri.Jose Joseph. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that there are connected matters in which this Court has already issued directions to the Appellate Authority to dispose of appeals in cases where the deduction under Section 80P of the Act have been sought without insisting on any deposit. Ext.P3 is one such judgment where this Court directed the appeal to be disposed of without insisting on payment of any percentage of the amount already assessed. 5. Having regard to the circumstances arising in the case, I am of the view that the appeal filed by the petitioner as Ext.P2 before the first respondent can be directed to be disposed of in WP(C) NO. 19856 OF 2021 -4- accordance with law. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the Appellate Authority concerned to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within an outer period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that the appeal shall be disposed of by the 1st respondent without insisting on payment of 20% of the tax demanded. Needless to say, till a decision is taken by the 1st respondent on the appeal, all recovery proceedings pursuant to assessment order shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE hmh WP(C) NO. 19856 OF 2021 -5- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19856/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 17.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT PERIOD 2017-18 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2017-18 DATED 16.1.2020 Exhibit P3 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.9.2021 IN WPC NO 18004 OF 2021 RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT NIL "