THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE THALAPPALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/99/2019HC KeralaKLHC01002850201929 September 2022Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI8 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the principal question is no longer res integra, citing the Apex Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax. The Court observed that the ancillary argument regarding includable interest earned by the assessee from members or non-members, or income from a registered Co-operative Society or Treasury Bank, does not lead to a cascading effect or limit the Department's discretion in subsequent assessment years. The Court noted that the Supreme Court in its order dated 04.10.2018 in Civil Appeal No.7526/2011, while giving effect to Circular No.3/2019 dated 11.07.2018, granted liberty to the Revenue to seek review. The Court further stated that the value in the appeal is less than the limit prescribed by the CBDT Circular, and the Supreme Court judgment in S.C. Naregal v. Commissioner of Income Tax, which considered the effect of CBDT Circulars and dismissed appeals falling within their purport, is applicable. Therefore, the High Court concluded that the appeal could be dismissed as coming within the monetary limit prescribed in Circular No.3/2018, subject to the observations in the order dated 04.10.2018 in Civil Appeal No.7526/2011. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) is the appellant, and The Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (assessee) is the respondent. The appeal is directed against an order dated 14.08.2018 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, in ITA No.113/Coch/2018. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2013-14. The tax effect in this appeal is stated to be below the ceiling limit prescribed by the CBDT. The Revenue argues that exceptions to the general rule of not pursuing appeals below a certain tax effect are attracted in this case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable despite the tax effect being below the ceiling limit prescribed by the CBDT, considering the exceptions laid down by the Supreme Court in cases like Commissioner of Income Tax v. Surya Herbal Ltd. and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tarun R. Tahliani. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee's counsel. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contends that exceptions set out in Supreme Court decisions are attracted, making the appeal maintainable. The Revenue relies on the Supreme Court's decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Surya Herbal Ltd., Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tarun R. Tahliani, and S.C. Naregal v. Commissioner of Income Tax. The Revenue argues that the case falls under the second exception, allowing the appeal to be pursued.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 7TH ASWINA, 1944 ITA NO. 99 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER ITA 113/2018 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/S:

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOTTAYAM.

BY ADVS. NAVNEETH N NATH SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX

RESPONDENT/S:

THE THALAPPALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. PLASSANAL, KOTTAYAM - 686 579.

BY ADVS. SRI.A.KUMAR; SMTG.MINI(1748) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

I.T.A. No.99/2019

-2-

J U D G M E N T S.V. Bhatti, J. Heard Adv Navneeth N Nath, holding for learned Senior Advocate Mr P K R Menon, and learned Counsel Mr A Kumar for parties.

2.

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax/Revenue is the appellant. M/s. The Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd/assessee is the respondent. The appeal, at the instance of the Revenue, is directed against the order dated 14.08.2018 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) Cochin Bench in ITA No.113/Coch/2018. The appeal relates to the return filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The tax effect in the subject appeal is below the ceiling limit.

I.T.A. No.99/2019

-3-

3.

Mr Navneeth N Nath canvasses that exceptions set out in the decisions are attracted, and invites our attention to the following decisions of the Apex Court: (1) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Surya Herbal Ltd1 “Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated February 9, 2011, should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under the Income-tax Act, 1961, in which a common principle may be involved in subsequent group of matters or a large number of matters. In our view, in such cases if attention of the High Court is drawn, the High Court will not apply the Circular ipso facto. For that purpose, liberty is granted to the Department to move the High Court in two weeks. The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (2) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tarun R. Tahliani2 “In these appeals, the tax effect is less than Rs. 1 Crore and are covered by Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 of the Central

1 (2013) 350 ITR 300 (SC) 2 Order dated 04.10.2018 in Civil Appeal No.7526/2011

I.T.A. No.99/2019

-4-

Board of Direct Taxes. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. However, it shall be open to the Income-Tax Department to seek review in any of these matters, if it is pointed out that the tax effect is more than Rs. 1 Crore. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (3) S.C. Naregal v. Commissioner of Income Tax3 “Similar question came up for consideration before this court in DIT v. S.R. M. B. Dairy Farming (P.) Ltd. reported in [2018] 13 SCC 239¹. This court after considering the decisions of different High Courts, including the Supreme Court decision on the question involved, namely, CIT v. Surya Herbal Ltd. reported in [2011] 15 SCC 4822 answered the question in favour of the assessee in the following words: "We are of the view that the matter needs to be put to rest and a clarity be obtained in view of the impact of this issue on pending cases before the High Courts as well as the cases which have been disposed of by various High Courts by applying the circular of 2011 to pending litigations. In our view the matter has been squarely put to rest taking further care of the interest of the Revenue by the order passed by the three-judges Bench of this court in Surya

3 (2019) 418 ITR (SC)

I.T.A. No.99/2019

-5-

Herbal Ltd. case, which had put two caveats even to the retrospective application of the circular. The subsequent orders have been passed by the two judges Bench without those orders being brought to the notice of the court, a duty which was cast on the Department to have done so to avoid the ambiguity which has arisen. Thus, the said view of the three-judges Bench would hold water and the circular would apply even to pending matters but subject to the two caveats provided in Surya Herbal Ltd. case." The same interpretation must apply to the instructions under consideration. In the present case, there is no possibility of cascading effect nor the issue is involved in group of matters, as such. Therefore, the appeals are allowed.”

3.1 He argues that the case comes under the second exception and therefore the appeal, at the instance of the Revenue, is maintainable and could be pursued. 4. The principal question for decision is no more res integra in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v. Commissioner of Income

I.T.A. No.99/2019

-6-

Tax4. The ancillary argument to bring the case under one or the other exceptions is regarding the includable interest earned by the assessee/Society either from members or non-members or income from registered Co-operative Society or from Treasury Bank etc. Examined from any standpoint, it cannot be said that the consideration of the subject appeal by referring to the Circular would in any way have either cascading effect or would limit the discretion of the Department in subsequent assessment years. The order of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7526/2011, while giving effect to Circular No.3/2019 dated 11.07.2018, has given liberty to the Revenue to seek review of the order made following the Circular.

4.1 The value in the appeal is less than the limit prescribed by CBDT Circular. The Supreme Court in the judgment reported in S.C.Naregal v Commissioner of Income Tax5

4 (2021) 431 ITR 1 (SC) 5(2019) 418 455 (SC)

I.T.A. No.99/2019

-7-

has considered the effect of CBDT Circular and dismissed the appeal coming within the purport of CBDT Circular. The valuation of the subject appeal since is less than the limit stipulated by CBDT Circular, the judgment of Apex Court in S.C.Naregal (supra) is applicable to the appeal. By a combined reading of the reported decisions and the order of the Supreme Court dated 04.10.2018, we are of the view that the appeal could be dismissed as coming within the monetary limit prescribed in Circular No.3/2018, subject to the observations made in the order dated 04.10.2018 in Civil Appeal No.7526/2011. Sd/- S.V.BHATTI JUDGE

Sd/- BASANT BALAJI JUDGE jjj

I.T.A. No.99/2019

-8-

APPENDIX OF ITA 99/2019

PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 260 A OF I.T. ACT, 1961. ANNEXURE B CIT (A)'S ORDER NO. ITA NO.K-03 CIT (A)/KTM/16-17 DATED 31.01.2018. ANNEXURE C ITAT'S ORDER IN ITA NO. 113/COCH/2018 CO.26/COCH/18 DATED 14.08.2018.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →