THE RANNI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE LTD NO.65, V. INCOME TAX OFFICER

WA/1126/2020

AI Insights

The case involves The Ranni Service Co-operative Ltd challenging an interim order by a learned Single Judge, which required the appellant to pay 20% of the demand made by the Income Tax Department. The appellant argued for a lesser percentage based on a precedent where a Co-operative Bank was directed to pay only 1% under similar circumstances. However, the court found no similarity between the cited precedent and the current case, as the issues involved were different. The court also noted that the appellant had already traversed the statutory path unsuccessfully and was now at the appellate stage concerning the business income and deductions under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 753318 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: WA No 1196 of 2018
• Laws Referred To: Section 80B, Section 80P
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: C A JOJO
• Keywords: Business income; Co-operative Bank; Deduction; Income Tax; Interim order; Writ Appeal
• Section: 80P; 80B

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 2ND BHADRA, 1942 WA.No.1126 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 15139/2020(N) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT: THE RANNI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE LTD NO.65, RANNY P.O.PATHANAMTHITTA-689 672. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.JOJO RESPONDENTS: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, T.K.ROAD, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA-689 101. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING KOTTAYAM-686 001. 3 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, KAKKANAD, PIN-682 037. OTHER PRESENT: SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC,IT THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Writ Appeal No.1126/2020 ::2:: J U D G M E N T Dated this the 24th day of August, 2020 Vinod Chandran, J The appellant is challenging the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein the appellant was directed to pay 20% of the demand made in Exts.P21, P22 and P23. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in similar circumstances a Division Bench of this Court issued Annexure A judgment permitting a Co-operative Bank to pay 1% of the demand, for staying the recovery while the first appeal was pending. 2. The learned Standing Counsel Sri.Jose Joseph submits that there is absolutely no similarity between the facts as disclosed from Annexure A Judgment and the present case. We perfectly agree with the said submission. Annexure Writ Appeal No.1126/2020 ::3:: A was in a circumstance of a Cooperative Bank having been asked to give the details of the depositors, on refusal of which, the Assessing Officer included the deposits made by such undisclosed depositors as undisclosed income. At the first appellate stage, the Co-operative Bank conceded to the demand made by the Department and promised to disclose the depositors. It was in such circumstances that a Division Bench of this Court directed deposit of 1% pending first appeal. 3. In the present case, the assessee had travelled the statutory path unsuccessfully. In second appeal, by Ext.P16 the Tribunal had directed ascertainment of the business income of the assessee and allow deduction under Section 80B. The order impugned at Exts.P17, P18 and P19 in the writ petition are the orders giving effect to the appellate order, which subsequent orders are challenged before the learned Single Judge. Writ Appeal No.1126/2020 ::4:: 4. It is pertinent that the issue dealt with by the statutory authority was not with respect to the details of depositors, but with respect to the transferring of provisions and reserves to the P&L account and claiming deduction under Section 80P. These are all adjustments made in the account which were found to be not proper by the Assessing Officer, in addition to which the relief under Section 80P was also declined. The Tribunal had merely directed the deduction to be granted under Section 80P after ascertaining the business income. In such circumstances, we do not see any similarity between the issue imugned in the writ petition and and that raised in Annexure A. 5. We are left with the order of the learned Single Judge which directed payment of 20% of the demand within one month which is an exercise of discretion, we would not interfere in appeal unless there is shown arbitrariness or illegality. Writ Appeal No.1126/2020 ::5:: The appellant is granted two months' time from today, if he pays 10% of the amounts by 30.09.2020 and another 10% by 30.11.2020. Writ Appeal is rejected in limine, with the above observation. Sd/- K. Vinod Chandran,Judge Sd/- T.R Ravi, Judge jma Writ Appeal No.1126/2020 ::6:: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO 1196 OF 2018 DATED 23.7.2018 ANNEXURE B UNDERTAKING AFFIDAVIT "