Wa/1126/2020 Of The Ranni Service Co-Operative Ltd v. Income Tax Officer

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 HIGHCOURT OF KERALA APPELLANT: THE RANNI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE LTD NO.65,RANNY P.O.PATHANAMTHITTA-689 672. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. RANNY P.O.PATHANAMTHITTA-689 672. REPRESENTED BY ADV. SRI.C.A.JOJO RESPONDENTS: 1INCOME TAX OFFICER101. WARD-3, T.K.ROAD, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA-689 2COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING KOTTAYAM-686 001.OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING KOTTAYAM-686 001. 3THE 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 ON24.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: Writ Appeal No.1126/2020 ::2:: J U D G M E N T Dated this the 24[th] day of August, 2020 Vinod Chandran, J The appellant is challenging the interimorder passed by the learned Single Judge, whereinthe appellant was directed to pay 20% of the demandmade in Exts.P21, P22 and P23. The learned Counselappearing for the appellant submits that in similarcircumstances a Division Bench of this Court issuedAnnexure A judgment permitting a Co-operative Bankto pay 1% of the demand, for staying the recoverywhile the first appeal was pending. 2. The learned Standing Counsel Sri.JoseJoseph submits that there is absolutely nosimilarity between the facts as disclosed fromAnnexure A Judgment and the present case. Weperfectly agree with the said submission. Annexure Writ Appeal No.1126/2020 ::3:: A was in a circumstance of a Cooperative Bankhaving been asked to give the details of thedepositors, on refusal of which, the AssessingOfficer included the deposits made by suchundisclosed depositors as undisclosed income. Atthe first appellate stage, the Co-operative Bankconceded to the demand made by the Department andpromised to disclose the depositors. It was in suchcircumstances that a Division Bench of this Courtdirected deposit of 1% pending first appeal. 3. In the present case, the assessee hadtravelled the statutory path unsuccessfully. Insecond appeal, by Ext.P16 the Tribunal had directedascertainment of the business income of theassessee and allow deduction under Section 80B.The order impugned at Exts.P17, P18 and P19 in thewrit petition are the orders giving effect to theappellate order, which subsequent orders arechallenged before the learned Single Judge. Writ Appeal No.1126/2020 ::4:: 4. It is pertinent that the issue dealtwith by the statutory authority was not withrespect to the details of depositors, but withrespect to the transferring of provisions andreserves to the P&L account and claiming deductionunder Section 80P. These are all adjustments madein the account which were found to be not proper by the Assessing Officer, in addition to which therelief under Section 80P was also declined. TheTribunal had merely directed the deduction to begranted under Section 80P after ascertaining thebusiness income. In such circumstances, we do notsee any similarity between the issue imugned in thewrit petition and and that raised in Annexure A. 5. We are left with the order of thelearned Single Judge which directed payment of 20%of the demand within one month which is an exerciseof discretion, we would not interfere in appealunless there is shown arbitrariness or illegality. Writ Appeal No.1126/2020 ::5:: The appellant is granted two months' time fromtoday, if he pays 10% of the amounts by 30.09.2020and another 10% by 30.11.2020. the Assessing Officer, in addition to which therelief under Section 80P was also declined. TheTribunal had merely directed the deduction to begranted under Section 80P after ascertaining thebusiness income. In such circumstances, we do notsee any similarity between the issue imugned in thewrit petition and and that raised in Annexure A. 5. We are left with the order of thelearned Single Judge which directed payment of 20%of the demand within one month which is an exerciseof discretion, we would not interfere in appealunless there is shown arbitrariness or illegality. Writ Appeal No.1126/2020 ::5:: The appellant is granted two months' time fromtoday, if he pays 10% of the amounts by 30.09.2020and another 10% by 30.11.2020. Writ Appeal is rejected in limine, withthe 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 AA TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO 1196 OF 2018 DATED 23.7.2018ANNEXURE BUNDERTAKING AFFIDAVIT