THE PATTAMBI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/26404/2024HC KeralaKLHC01125051202424 July 2024Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it noted that the petitioner had already preferred an appeal (Ext.P2) against the assessment order (Ext.P1) and that this appeal was pending before the second respondent (the Appellate Authority). Therefore, the Court deemed it fit to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in a time-bound manner. The Court directed the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 expeditiously. Furthermore, the Court ordered that no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order until the disposal of the appeal. The issue of whether the petitioner satisfied the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society and the applicability of the Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. judgment were not adjudicated upon by the High Court.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Pattambi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society. The Assessing Officer issued an assessment order on March 16, 2024, rejecting the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P. The rejection was based on the ground that the petitioner did not satisfy the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society as defined under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner has filed an appeal against this assessment order before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who is the second respondent. The petitioner contends that the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax governs the present case and renders the assessment incorrect.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order dated 16.03.2024, which rejected the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P on the ground of not satisfying the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, is legally sustainable? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argues that the assessment order is incorrect because the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax governs the field, implying that the deduction should have been allowed. The assessee relies on this Supreme Court judgment. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in this writ petition. The revenue is represented by counsel for the Income Tax Department.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 26404 OF 2024 PETITIONER: THE PATTAMBI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. P 585, RAZMALL COMPLEX, PALLIPPURAM ROAD, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD, PIN – 679 303. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE, V.P. SATHIDEVI. BY ADVS. K.KRISHNA ACHYUTH MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PIN – 110 001. 2 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)/COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, PIN – 110 001. BY ADV. SRI. JOSE JOSEPH (SC INCOME TAX DEPT) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.26404/2024 -:2:-

JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Ext.P1 order of assessment was issued against the petitioner on 16.03.2024. In the assessment order, petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P was rejected on the ground that there was no evidence to show that petitioner satisfied the ingredients of the Primary Agricultural Credit Society as contemplated under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.

2.

While assailing the assessment order before the 2nd respondent, petitioner has sought to canvas that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2021 (1) KLT 485] now governs the field thereby rendering the assessment itself as incorrect.

3.

Since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal as Ext.P2 and the same is pending consideration before the 2nd respondent, I deem it fit that this writ petition be disposed of directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in a time bound manner.

4.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2, as expeditiously as possible.

5.

Till the disposal of the appeal, no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order. The writ petition is disposed of as above. GOPINATH P.

JUDGE ats

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26404/2024 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2022-23 DTD. 16-03-2024. Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 15-04-2024. Exhibit P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 15-04-2024.

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →