The Mundur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. The Income-tax Officer Ward 2, Palakkad / The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Thrissur / The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Kochi
[Citation -2020-LL-0928-18]

Citation 2020-LL-0928-18
Appellant Name The Mundur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.
Respondent Name The Income-tax Officer Ward 2, Palakkad / The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Thrissur / The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Kochi
Court HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 28/09/2020
Assessment Year 2016-17
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags stay of recovery • stay petition
Bot Summary: No.20053 OF 2020(F) 2 JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority but the same was rejected by Ext.P2 order. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 appeal along with Ext.P4 stay petition before the 3rd respondent. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue involved in the appeal is the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act in its application to Co-Operative Societies. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar and the finding that in similar cases this Court has granted stay of recovery proceedings, pending disposal of the appeal by the appellate authority, I dispose the writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 appeal preferred by the petitioner within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. No.20053 OF 2020(F) 3 above and the orders communicated to the petitioner, recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Exts.P1 and P2 orders shall be kept in abeyance. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment together with a copy of the writ petition before the 3rd respondent for further action.


IN HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 6TH ASWINA, 1942 WP(C).No.20053 OF 2020(F) PETITIONER/S: MUNDUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F 1650, MUNDUR, PALAKKAD-678 592, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, JIJUMON A.J. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD-670 014 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THRISSUR -680 021 3 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AYAKAR BHAVAN, KAKKANADU, KOCHI-682 030, REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR OTHER PRESENT: SC: JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.09.2020, COURT ON SAME DAY DELIVERED FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.20053 OF 2020(F) 2 JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order under Income Tax Act, petitioner preferred appeal before First Appellate Authority but same was rejected by Ext.P2 order. Aggrieved by said order, petitioner preferred Ext.P3 appeal along with Ext.P4 stay petition before 3rd respondent. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that issue involved in appeal is permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of Income Tax Act in its application to Co-Operative Societies. It is pointed out that in similar matters this Court has directed appellate authority to consider and pass orders in appeal and stayed recovery proceedings, in meanwhile. 2. I have heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner as also learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents. On consideration of facts and circumstances of case and submissions made across Bar and finding that in similar cases this Court has granted stay of recovery proceedings, pending disposal of appeal by appellate authority, I dispose writ petition by directing 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 appeal preferred by petitioner within outer time limit of six months from date of receipt of copy of this judgment, after hearing petitioner. I also make it clear that till such time as orders are passed by 3rd respondent in appeal as directed WP(C).No.20053 OF 2020(F) 3 above and orders communicated to petitioner, recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against petitioner by Exts.P1 and P2 orders shall be kept in abeyance. petitioner shall produce copy of this judgment together with copy of writ petition before 3rd respondent for further action. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE SJ WP(C).No.20053 OF 2020(F) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR YEAR 2016-17. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT FOR YEAR 2016-17 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT - 2016-17. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT. Mundur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer Ward 2, Palakkad / Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Thrissur / Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Kochi
Report Error