Janahitha Credit Co-operative Society Limited V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2)(3) and The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 6(2) and The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI and The Commissioner of Income Tax- Bangalore

WA/5762/2015

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Janahitha Credit Co-operative Society Limited, which appealed against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court, which had not interfered with the interim stay granted conditionally for recovery of tax amount dues. The main legal issue was the applicability of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the tax liability assessed by the Assessing Officer. The court considered a previous decision and the current status of related review applications and appeals, ultimately deciding to grant an unconditional stay on the recovery of the tax amount until the CIT(Appeals) could review the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 793915 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Biluru Gurubasava Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Bagalkot
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: BALRAM RAO
• Keywords: Coercive Steps; Income Tax; Section 80P; Tax liability; Unconditional Stay
• Section: 80P; 225

Judgement Text

" - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT APPEAL No.5762/2015 (T-IT) BETWEEN: M/S. JANAHITHA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, NO.53, 10TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD, WOC ROAD, 2ND STAGE, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 086. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI. M.O. RANGANATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O. LATE M.S. PUTTAKAMAIAH. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI: BALRAM R. RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2)(3), 3RD FLOOR, JEEVAN SAMPIGE, NO.1/1, SAMPIGE ROAD, BANGALORE - 03. 2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 6(2), 3RD FLOOR, JEEVAN SAMPIGE, NO.1/1, SAMPIGE ROAD, BANGALORE - 03. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VI, 3RD FLOOR, HMT BHAVAN, 59, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE - 32. - 2 - 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- BANGALORE, R. NO. A-123, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, NO.1 QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE - 01. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) ***** THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 44621/2015 DATED 17/11/2015 AND ETC., THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Admit. 2. Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned Counsel for respondent waives notice of admission. 3. With the consent of learned counsel appearing on both sides, the appeal is finally heard. 4. The present appeal is directed against order dated 17/11/2015, passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.44621/2015, whereby - 3 - the learned single Judge has not interfered with the interim stay granted conditionally for recovery of Tax amount dues. 5. We have heard Mr. Balaram M.Rao, learned counsel appearing for appellant and Mr. K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. As such, it appears from the order of the Assessing Officer himself, more particularly at paragraph No.7, that the issue about the tax liability and the deduction available under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), is covered by a decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Biluru Gurubasava Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Bagalkot, vide ITA.No.5006/2013 disposed on 5/2/2011. However, the Assessing Officer considered that as the Board has directed for filing of review application, the benefit is not extended as available under Section 80P of the Act and the tax is assessed at Rs.31,69,230/-. - 4 - 7. When we further enquired from the learned counsel for respondent about the outcome of the review application, it has been reported by him that as per his information, the review applications were most probably withdrawn and the appeals were filed against the decision of this court before the Apex Court and the appeals are admitted. 8. In the above view of the matter, as on today one can say that the decision of this court would operate. As per the decision of this Court the benefit under Section 80P of the Act is available, only if the benefit has not been granted by the Assessing Officer (not otherwise), may be because of the review application filed in the instant case, the Assessing Officer did not also grant any order of stay. Hence, it would be just and proper to grant unconditional stay under exceptional and peculiar circumstances as the issue is already covered by the decision of this Court. - 5 - 9. When the matter is examined in light of the above, we find that neither the appellate authority while considering the interim stay application under Section 225 of the Act, nor the learned single Judge has examined the aforesaid aspects. Hence, we find that the following directions would meet the ends of justice: The impugned order of the competent authority under Section 225 of the Act as well as the order of the learned single Judge are set aside with a further direction that the appeal preferred by the appellant before the CIT(Appeals) shall be heard and decided preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order of this court. Until the appeal is heard and decided, no coercive steps for recovery of tax amount shall be taken by the respondent. 10. It is observed that the CIT (Appeals) shall be at liberty to take an independent view of the matter without being influenced by the interim stay granted by this court. - 6 - 11. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE S* "