CHERTHALA TALUK AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Department states that the issue raised by the petitioner is to be agitated by by filing an appeal against the order of assessment and not by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the question as to whether the petitioner was actually entitled to deduction under Section 80 P (ii) (d) of the Income Tax Act is a matter to be determined with reference to the facts and therefore the petitioner cannot challenge the assessment order directly by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In W.P (C) No.34334/2022 the petitioner challenges the order of assessment for assessment year 2020-21 on the ground that the assessing officer denied the deduction under Section 80 P as well as under Section 80 P (ii) (d) without considering the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 431 ITR 1. It is submitted that the deduction under Section 80 P (ii) (d) was denied by discarding -5- the judgment in Peroorkada (supra).

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent bank, I am of the view that since it is admitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and others v. Commissioner of Income Tax and another; 431 ITR 1 and was not considered while finalizing the assessment which was subject matter of challenge in W.P (C) No.34334/2022 and since the decision in Peroorkada (supra) [442 ITR 141] was not considered while denying the benefit of deduction under Section 80P (ii) (d), the assessment orders which are impugned are liable to be set aside and the matter remanded to the respective assessing authorities for reconsideration after taking into consideration of the judgments referred to above. A Division Bench of this court to which I was also a party has by judgment in M/s. Poonjar Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., v. Income Tax officer (judgment dated 28-06-2022 in WA No.753/2021) concluded as follows; “An erroneous assessment occasioned by ignoring a binding judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be trivialized as an order against which an appellate remedy lies that would provide justice to an assessee.” Having regard to the above and taking into consideration of the judgment of the Division Bench in M/s. Poonjar Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., (supra) these writ petitions are allowed. Accordingly orders of assessment produced as Ext.P1 in all these writ petitions are quashed and the assessments are remanded to the National Faceless Assessment Centre for fresh consideration in accordance with law after affording to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and taking into -6- consideration the law laid down in the judgments referred to above. The needful shall be done as expeditiously as possible and without any undue delay. GOPINATH P. JUDGE AMG -7-