Wp(C)/9658/2020 Of Eloor Service Co Operative Bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer

W.P(C) NO.9658 OF 2020 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 05 DAY OF MAY, 2020/15TH VAISAKHA, 1942W.P(C) NO.9658 OF 2020 PETITIONER M/S. ELOOR SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD. NO.E-103, CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.UDYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM – 683 501REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,SMT. M. K. PREMALATHA BY ADVS. SRI. V.P NARAYAN, SMT. NISHA JOHN, SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN AND SRI.BASKARAKRISHNAN .R RESPONDENTS 1.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD – 1, TPS, KAP COMMERCIAL COMPLEX O/O ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXALUVA RANGE, R.S. ROAD, ALUVA – 683 101 2.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),28/243, “POORNIMA”,NEAR MANORAMA JUNCTION,PANAMPILLY NAGAR,KOCHI – 682 036 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON05.05.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: JUDGMENT I have heard the counsel for the petitioner through video conferencing. I have also heard the standing counsel forincome tax who has taken notice on behalf of respondents. Inthe facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it fit that thiswrit petition be disposed of. 2. Petitioner is an income tax assessee and the issue relates to the assessment years 2013-14 and 2017-18. ByExts.P1 and P2, the 1[st] respondent disallowed petitioner’s claimfor deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act anddemanded an amount of Rs.2,36,86,840/- and Rs.3,43,97,528respectively as tax. 3. Challenging the said assessment, petitioner haspreferred Exts.P3 and P4 appeals contending that the reasonfor disallowing petitioner’s claim for deduction under section80P is not tenable. While the appeal is pending, the W.P(C) NO.9658 OF 2020 3 respondents have initiated recovery proceedings to recover thetax allegedly due. 4. I find force in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that if the respondents proceed with coercive stepspending consideration of the statutory appeal, the same will berendered redundant and petitioner will be put to severedifficulties. 5. In such circumstances, I dispose of the writ petitionby directing the respondents not to proceed with any coercivesteps against the petitioner pending disposal of Exts.P3 and P4appeals. I also direct the 2[nd] respondent to consider anddispose of Exts.P3 and P4 appeals within a period of 6 monthswithout insisting on payment of 10% of the tax demanded. Sd/- vps BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXTS: EXHIBIT-P1 – TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.03.2016 FOR AY-2013-14 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT–P2 – TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2019 FOR AY-2017-18 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.FOR AY-2017-18 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P3– TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 27.04.2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2013-14. 27.04.2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2013-14. EXHIBIT-P3(A)– TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 25.06.2019FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2013-14.FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2013-14. EXHIBIT-P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 24.01.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2017-18.24.01.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2017-18. EXHIBIT-P4(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 13.03.2020FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2017-18.FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AY-2017-18.