THE ANANTHAVOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/7795/2016

AI Insights

The case involves the Ananthavoor Service Co-operative Bank Limited, which challenged the dismissal of its stay applications related to income tax assessment orders for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13. The stay applications were dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the grounds that the bank was not willing to pay 50% of the assessed amounts as a condition for the stay. The bank appealed against this decision, arguing that it was entitled to the benefits under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, a matter which had been favorably decided in similar cases by the High Court. The court found merit in the bank's arguments, noting the precedents set in similar cases, and thus quashed the dismissal of the stay applications, directing a re-evaluation of the appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699542 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-03-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K M V PANDALAI
• Assessee Lawyers: C A JOJO; JACOB CHACKO; MATHEWS JOSEPH
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Income Tax; Stay Application
• Section: 80P

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2016/11TH PHALGUNA, 1937 WP(C).No. 7795 of 2016 (Y) --------------------------- PETITIONER : ----------------- THE ANANTHAVOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. F1545, REPRESENTED BY ITS THE SECRETARY SHRI. ALIAVI, K., AGED 52 YEARS, ANANTHAVOOR P.O., VIA THIRUNAVAYA, MALAPPURAM PIN - 676301. BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH RESPONDENTS : ---------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. - 1, OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICE, TARIFF BAZAR, OPP. TOWN HALL, TIRUR - 676101. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOZHIKODE - 673001. R1 & R2 BY SRI.K.M.V.P ANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: bp WP(C).No. 7795 of 2016 (Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : P1: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER 30/1/2015 FOR AY 2009-10. P2: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER 30/1/2015 FOR AY 2010-11. P3: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER 30/1/2015 FOR AY 2011-12. P4: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER 30/1/2015 FOR AY 2012-13. P5: COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2009-10 DT 25/2/2015. P6: COPY OF THE STAY PETITION 25/2/2015 FOR AY 2009-10. P7: COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2010-11 DT 25/2/2015. P8: COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DT 25/2/2015 FOR AY 2010-11. P9: COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2011-12 DT 25/2/2015. P10: COPY OF THE SAY PETITION DT 25/2/2015 FOR AY 2011-12. P11: COPY OF THE APPEAL FOR AY 2012-13 DT 25/2/2015. P12: COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DT 25/2/2015 FOR AY 2012-13. P13: COPY OF THE ORDER ON STAY PETITION DT 5/10/2015 BY R2. P14: COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DT 9/10/2015 BEFORE ITAT, COCHIN BENCH. P15: COPY OF THE ORDER ON STAY PETITION DT 29/1/2016 BY THE ITAT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE bp A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. W.P.(C).No.7795 Of 2016 ............................................................. Dated this the 1st day of March, 2016 J U D G M E N T Against Exts.P1 to P4 assessment orders under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Exts.P5, P7, P9 and P11 appeals before the 2nd respondent. In the stay applications that were filed along with the appeals, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P13 order dismissing the stay applications stating that the petitioner was not ready to accept the offer of payment of 50% of the amounts confirmed against him by the assessment order as a condition for grant of stay. Ext.P13 order is impugned in the writ petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing counsel for the respondents. 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find that the issue involved in the appeals pending before the 2nd respondent is -2- W.P.(C). No.7795 of 2016 the entitlement of the petitioner to the benefit of Section 80 P of the Income Tax Act. I note that a number of income tax appeals on the same issue have since been decided by this Court in favour of the assessee, and therefore, the petitioner would prima facie be entitled to the benefit of these judgments. Taking note of the said fact, I am of the view that, Ext.P13 order to the extent it dismisses the stay applications filed by the petitioner pending disposal of the appeals cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P13 order and direct the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P5, P7, P9 and P11 appeals within a period of three months after hearing the petitioner. It is made clear that recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Exts.P1 to P4 assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 2nd respondent for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns/1.3.16 -3- W.P.(C). No.7795 of 2016 "