Keechery Service Co-Operative ... vs The Income Tax Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 11407 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

    THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                       WP(C).No.8950 OF 2021(P)


PETITIONER:

               KEECHERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.668,
               APXII/135, KULAYATTIKKARA,
               KANJIRAMATTOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 317,
               REP.BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. REJISON JOHN.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR
               SMT.G.REMADEVI
               SHRI.RAJATH R NATH
               SMT.HARIMA HARIHARAN

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,
               WARD 1(1), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING,
               I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI 682 018.

      2        THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF
               INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER,
               NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI 110 001.

      3        COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),
               NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI 110 001.


               R1-3 BY SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, STANDING COUNSEL.

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.8950 OF 2021

                                             2




                                    JUDGMENT

Dated this the 08th day of April 2021

Heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel takes

notice for the respondents.

2. According to the petitioner, the respondent

has denied benefit of deduction under Section 80P of

the Income Tax Act to the petitioner and the

petitioner has challenged the Assessment Order by

filing an appeal, Exhibit P2 with stay application

Exhibit P3 before the 3rd respondent. However,

during pendency of the appeal and stay petition, the

2nd respondent is insisting for effecting recovery in

pursuant to the amount determined by the assessment

order at Exhibit P1.

3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for

the respondents submits that the petitioner is not

entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section

80P of the Income Tax Act as the return was not

filed in due date. He however submits that as the

stay petition is pending before the appellate WP(C).No.8950 OF 2021

authority, appropriate orders can be passed for

deferring the recovery proceedings till disposal of

the stay petition.

In this view of the matter, as the stay

petition Exhibit P3 is pending for adjudication

before the 3rd respondent, the petition is disposed

of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to decide

the pending stay petition Exhibit P3 within a period

of three months from today by following due process

of law. Till disposal of the stay petition, Exhibit

P3 by the 3rd respondent, the respondents are

directed to defer recovery proceedings initiated in

pursuant to the assessment order at Exhibit P1.

The petition, is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR JUDGE SSK/08/04 WP(C).No.8950 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 12.3.2021 EXHIBIT P1 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19

COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 30.3.2021 EXHIBIT P2 AGAINST EXT. P1

COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE EXHIBIT P3 PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 30.3.2021 IN EXT. P1 APPEAL.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL


SSK                      //TRUE COPY//           PA TO JUDGE