Azhikode Service Co-Operative ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 19437 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 25TH BHADRA, 1943

                   WP(C) NO. 19161 OF 2021

PETITIONER:

          AZHIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.R 287
          KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, 680 666,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
          BY ADV O.D.SIVADAS


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)
          AYAKAR BHAVAN, SHAKTAN NAGAR,
          THRISSUR, PIN-680 001.
    2     THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
          WARD 2(1), SHAKTAN NAGAR,
          THRISSUR, PIN-680 001.



          SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC


     THIS WRIT PETITION        (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP    FOR
ADMISSION ON 16.09.2021,       THE COURT ON THE SAME     DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.19161/21                   -:2:-




                       BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
                          ------------------------------------
                          W.P.(C) No. 19161 of 2021
                         --------------------------------------
                  Dated this the 16th day of September, 2021

                                 JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a co-operative society, which claimed the benefit under

Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act. By the order dated 17.12.2019, the

assessing officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the

Income Tax Act and disallowed the claim under Section 80P(2) of the Act.

A demand for a huge amount has already been made against the

petitioner.

2. Challenging the order of assessment, petitioner has preferred

Ext.P2 appeal before the first respondent. It is submitted that the appeal

is pending consideration. However, apprehending coercive steps that may

be initiated, pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order, petitioner seeks for a

direction for an early disposal of Ext.P2 appeal.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

Adv.O.D.Sivadas as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the

respondents Sri.Jose Joseph.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that there are

connected matters in which this Court has already issued directions to the

Appellate Authority to dispose of appeals in cases where the deduction

under Section 80P of the Act have been sought without insisting on any

deposit. Ext.P3 is one such judgment where this Court directed the

appeal to be disposed of without insisting on payment of any percentage

of the amount already assessed.

5. Having regard to the circumstances arising in the case, I am of

the view that Ext.P2 appeal filed by the petitioner before the first

respondent can be directed to be disposed of in accordance with law.

6. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the Appellate Authority

concerned to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 appeal, after affording an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within an outer period of six months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that the

appeal shall be disposed of by the first respondent without insisting on

payment of 20% of the tax demanded. Needless to say, till a decision is

taken by the first respondent on the appeal, all recovery proceedings

pursuant to assessment order shall be kept in abeyance.

The writ petition is allowed as above.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE vps

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19161/2021

PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 17.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT PERIOD 2017-18.

EXHIBIT P2               COPY   OF  THE   APPEAL  FILED   BY  THE
                         PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT FOR
                         THE PERIOD 2017-18 DATED 10.1.2020.
EXHIBIT P3               TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.9.2021
                         IN WPC NO.18004 OF 2021 RENDERED BY THIS
                         HON'BLE COURT.