THE MANNARKKAD TALUK GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED P-630 V. THE ADDL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/16665/2022

AI Insights

The case involves the Mannarkkad Taluk Government Employees Co-op Credit Society Limited, which sought relief from the High Court of Kerala after their claim for benefits under Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was disallowed by the assessing officer. The society had filed an appeal and a stay petition against the assessment order, which was still pending. The primary legal issue was the society's request for an expedited decision on their appeal to avoid coercive recovery actions based on the disputed tax assessment. The court considered precedents where similar appeals were expedited without the usual deposit requirement and decided to direct the appellate authority to resolve the society's appeal promptly.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 751396 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISANKAR MENON; MEERA MENON
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Co-operative Society; Income Tax; Stay Petition
• Section: 143(3); 80P(4)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 16665 OF 2022 PETITIONER: THE MANNARKKAD TALUK GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED P-630 MANNARKKAD P.O., PALAKKAD -678 582, REPRESENTED SECRETARY, UMA.N.V. BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ADDL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI - 110 001. 2 NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI - 110 001, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER. OTHER PRESENT: SC,JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 16665 OF 2022 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J …......….................................. W.P.(C) No. 16665 of 2022 ….................................. Dated this the 24th day of May, 2022 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a co-operative society, who claimed the benefit under Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for short the ‘Act’). By order dated 28.03.2022, the assessing officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act and disallowed the claim and issued a demand. 2. Challenging the order of assessment, petitioner has preferred an appeal along with stay petition before the first respondent as Ext.P2 and Ext.P3. It is submitted that the appeal is pending consideration. However, apprehending coercive steps that may be initiated, pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order, petitioner seeks for a direction for an early disposal of Ext.P2 appeal. WP(C) NO. 16665 OF 2022 3 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Adv.Harisankar V.Menon 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. 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 accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent 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 2nd respondent without insisting on WP(C) NO. 16665 OF 2022 4 payment of 20% of the tax demanded. Needless to say, till a decision is taken by the first respondent on the appeal, all recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJM WP(C) NO. 16665 OF 2022 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16665/2022 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS : Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18. Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE "