By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 2ND ASWINA, 1942 WP(C).No.19740 OF 2020(N) PETITIONER: THE MALAMPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,NO. P-907, KADUKKAMKUNNU, P.O.MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD-678 651, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.K.K.PRATHEEP. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENONSMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1THE INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD 1 AND TPS, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD-678 014. 2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),THRISSUR-680 021. 3THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,AYAKAR BHAVAN, KAKKANADU, KOCHI-682 030, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. BY GOVT. PLEADER DR. THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.09.2020,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, thepetitioner preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority butthe same was rejected by Ext.P2 order. Aggrieved by the said order, thepetitioner preferred Ext.P3 appeal along with Ext.P4 stay petition beforethe 3[rd] respondent. It is the contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioner that the issue involved in the appeal is the permissibility ofdeduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act in its application toCo-Operative Societies. It is pointed out that in similar matters thisCourt has directed the appellate authority to consider and pass orders inthe appeal and stayed the recovery proceedings, in the meanwhile. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioneras also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case andthe submissions made across the Bar and the finding that in similarcases this Court has granted stay of recovery proceedings, pendingdisposal of the appeal by the appellate authority, I dispose the writpetition by directing the 3[rd] respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 appeal preferred by the petitioner within an outer time limit of sixmonths from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearingthe petitioner. I also make it clear that till such time as orders are passedby the 3[rd] respondent in the appeal as directed above and the orderscommunicated to the petitioner, recovery steps for recovery of amountsconfirmed against the petitioner by Exts.P1 and P2 orders shall be keptin abeyance. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgmenttogether with a copy of the writ petition before the 3[rd] respondent forfurther action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns PETITIONERS EXHIBITS APPENDIX EXHIBIT P1COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 27.12.2019.EXHIBIT P2COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 26.08.2020. EXHIBIT P3COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORETHE 3RD RESPONDENT 2016-17 DATED 19.09.2020. EXHIBIT P4COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERBEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19.09.2020. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE