THE THALORE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD V. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/21075/2021

AI Insights

The case involves the Thalore Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., which challenged an assessment order by the Income Tax Officer, disallowing their claim for benefits under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act for the year 2018-2019. The bank had filed an appeal against this order, which was pending at the National Faceless Appeal Centre. The bank apprehended coercive recovery actions based on the assessment order and sought relief from the High Court of Kerala. The court, referencing a similar case (Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others), directed the appeal to be resolved expeditiously and stayed all coercive actions based on the disputed assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 760433 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others [2021 (1) KLT 485]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISANKAR MENON; MEERA MENON
• Keywords: Appeal; Appellate Authority; Assessment; Coercive Steps; Discretionary powers; Income Tax; Section 80P
• Section: 80P

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 13TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 21075 OF 2021 PETITIONER: THE THALORE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD 1-269, THALORE, THRISSUR-680 306, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, T.V.SHAJKUMAR. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI-110 001. 2 NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI-110 001, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 3 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1), THRISSUR-680 001. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.21075 of 2021 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J =========================== W.P.(C) No.21075 of 2021 --------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of October, 2021 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. For the assessment year 2018-2019 the assessment was completed by the 3rd respondent disallowing the claim of benefits under Section 80P of the Act. Challenging the order of assessment, petitioner has preferred an appeal as Ext.P2 before the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that the said appeal is pending consideration and that in the meantime petitioner is apprehending coercive steps being taken. 2. Having regard to the fact that in similar cases were the claim for deduction under Section 80P of the Act has been claimed, this Court has been consistently directing the appeal itself to be disposed of, taking into reckoning the decision rendered by the Supreme Court W.P.(C) No.21075 of 2021 3 in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others [2021 (1) KLT 485]. 3. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by Ext.P4, the assessing officer has demanded the petitioner to deposit 20% of the sum adjudged in Ext.P1 for the purpose of staying further proceedings for recovery. 4. It is a settled principle that the Office Memorandum of 2016 as revised in 2017 cannot control the discretionary powers of the appellate authority. Since the appeal is pending consideration, Ext.P4 may not have any relevance for the time being, in view of the nature of orders I propose to issue in this case. 5. In similar cases, this Court has directed the appeal to be disposed of in a time bound manner. 6. Petitioner also stands in the same footing and there is no reason why a departure should be made from the W.P.(C) No.21075 of 2021 4 other cases. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 appeal filed by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible. Pending such consideration, all coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE AMV/06/10//2021 W.P.(C) No.21075 of 2021 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21075/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 DATED 12.4.2021 Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.4.2021 Exhibit P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19.5.2021 Exhibit P4 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 2.7.2021 Exhibit P5 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.9.2021 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL "