Wp(C)/26545/2020 Of The Kadannamanna Service Co-Operative Bank Limited v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942WP(C).No.26545 OF 2020(P) PETITIONER/S: THE KADANNAMANNA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.10561KADANNAMANNA.P.O,MANAKADA VIAMALAPPURAM-679324,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT/S: 1THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)AYAKAR BHAVAN,KOZHIKODE,PIN-673001.AYAKAR BHAVAN,KOZHIKODE,PIN-673001. 2THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD(4),TIRUR,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-676001. 3THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,KAKKANAD,KOCHI-682037. OTHER PRESENT: SC: SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON01.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, the petitionerpreferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority but the same was rejectedby Ext.P2 order. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3appeal along with Ext.P4 stay petition before the 3[rd] respondent. It is thecontention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue involved in theappeal is the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Actin its application to Co-Operative Societies. It is pointed out that in similar mattersthis Court has directed the appellate authority to consider and pass orders in theappeal and stayed the recovery proceedings, in the meanwhile. 2.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as alsothe learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and thesubmissions made across the Bar and the finding that in similar cases this Courthas granted stay of recovery proceedings, pending disposal of the appeal by theappellate authority, I dispose the writ petition by directing the 3[rd] respondent toconsider and pass orders on Ext.P3 appeal preferred by the petitioner within anouter time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment,after hearing the petitioner. I also make it clear that till such time as orders arepassed by the 3[rd] respondent in the appeal as directed above and the orderscommunicated to the petitioner, recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmedagainst the petitioner by Exts.P1 and P2 orders shall be kept in abeyance. Thepetitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment together with a copy of the writpetition before the 3[rd] respondent for further action. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2016-17THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2016-17 EXT.P2COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 EXT.P3COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 03.10.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOCHI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17PETITIONER BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOCHI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 EXT.P4COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 18.11.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,KOCHI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17THE PETITIONER FORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,KOCHI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17