THE ELAPPULLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.F 1193, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/21397/2022HC KeralaKLHC01044008202230 June 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the competent Appellate Authority, to consider and pass appropriate orders on the appeal filed by the petitioner (Ext.P3) expeditiously. The Court also ordered that no coercive steps would be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the disposal of the appeal. The primary focus was on ensuring a time-bound disposal of the pending appeal, acknowledging the pendency of the appeal and the petitioner's reliance on a Supreme Court judgment. No specific finding was made on the Section 80P deduction or the definition of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Elappully Service Co-operative Bank Limited, a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, received an assessment order on December 25, 2018. The Assessing Officer rejected the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P, stating there was no evidence that the petitioner met the criteria of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society as defined by the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner filed an appeal against this assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax now governs such cases and renders the assessment incorrect. The appeal was pending before the appellate authority.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order dated 25.12.2018, which rejected the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P on the grounds that the petitioner did not satisfy the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society as contemplated under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, is legally sustainable. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee contended that the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2021 (1) KLT 485] governs the field and renders the assessment order incorrect. The assessee relied on this Supreme Court judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in response to the assessee's arguments before the High Court.

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. THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 9TH ASHADHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 21397 OF 2022 PETITIONER: THE ELAPPULLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.F 1193,ELAPPULLY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 622, 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, AAYKAR BHAVAN, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 014. BY ADV.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 21397 OF 2022 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 25.12.2018. 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 1st respondent, petitioner has sought to canvass 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.P3 and the same is pending consideration before the 1st respondent, I deem it fit that this writ petition be disposed of directing the competent Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in a time bound manner.

WP(C) NO. 21397 OF 2022 3

4.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent / competent Appellate Authority to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3, 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 DK

WP(C) NO. 21397 OF 2022 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21397/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT OF UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 16.1.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 9.6.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.9.2021IN WP(C) NO.18004 OF 2021 RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →