Wp(C)/31276/2019 Of The Pullampara Service Co-Operative Bank.ltd v. The Income Tax Officer
High Court
20 Nov 2019 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/31276/2019 Of The Pullampara Service Co-Operative Bank.ltd v. The Income Tax Officer
Date of order
20 Nov 2019
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp(C)/31276/2019 Of The Pullampara Service Co-Operative Bank.ltd v. The Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2019) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019/29TH KARTHIKA, 1941
W.P(C).No.31276 OF 2019(H)
PETITIONER:
THE PULLAMPARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK. LTDNO.2429, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BY ITS SECRETARY, MUKKUDIL P.O, VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT -695 607
BY ADVS.SRI.T.R.HARIKUMARSRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN
RESPONDENTS:
BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSIONON 20.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
Against Ext.P3 rectified order under the Income Tax Act,the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 appeal together with Ext.P5stay petition before the 3[rd] respondent. It is the case of thepetitioner that even prior to considering the stay petition,recovery steps are taken by the respondents against thepetitioner for recovery of the amounts confirmed by Ext.P3rectified order. It is stated by the learned counsel for thepetitioner that the issue involved in the appeal pertains to dis-allowance of deduction claimed under Section 80P of the IncomeTax Act.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing forthe respondents.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of thecase as also the submissions made across the Bar and takingnote of the fact that in similar matters, this Court has directedthe Appellate Authority to consider and pass orders in the appeal
and stayed the recovery of disputed amounts pending disposal ofthe appeal, this Writ petition is disposed directing the 3[rd]respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 appeal itselfwithin an outer time limit of six months. Recovery steps forrecovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P3rectified order shall be kept in abeyance till such time as ordersare passed by the 3[rd] respondent as directed above andcommunicated to the petitioner.
Sd/-A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
prp/19/11/19
W.P.(C).No.31276/2019 : 4 :
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1
A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THEYEAR 2011-2012 DATED 24.11.2017.
EXHIBIT P2
A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2018IN ITA NO.120/EF/TVM/CIT(A)/TVM/2017-18 OFTHE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3
A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.09.2019IN ITA NO.120/EF/TVM/CIT(A)/TVM/2017-18,ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT.
EXHIBIT P4
A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM ALONGWITH AFFIDAVIT DATED 30.10.2019 AND CHELAN.
EXHIBIT P5
A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILEDALONG WITH EXT P4 APPEAL DATED 30.10.2019.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:
NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.