THE POLPULLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.F 1198 vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/20970/2022HC KeralaKLHC01043205202228 June 2022Author: 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 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 deemed it fit to dispose of the writ petition by directing the appellate authority to consider the pending appeal. The Court also ordered that no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the disposal of the appeal. The specific finding on the issue of Section 80P deduction and the applicability of the Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. judgment was left to be decided by the appellate authority.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Polpully Service Co-operative Bank Limited, a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, received an assessment order dated 20.12.2016 from the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Palakkad. The assessment order rejected the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P, citing a lack of evidence that the petitioner satisfied the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society as defined by the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner challenged 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 [2021 (1) KLT 485] now governs the issue and renders the assessment incorrect. The appeal is pending before the appellate authority.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order rejecting the deduction under Section 80P, on the grounds that the petitioner did not satisfy the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, is legally sustainable in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2021 (1) KLT 485]? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 80P of the Income Tax Act). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner contended that the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2021 (1) KLT 485] governs the present case and renders the assessment order incorrect. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in this writ petition.

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. TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 20970 OF 2022 PETITIONER: THE POLPULLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO.F 1198, POLPULLY, 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 SRI. JOSE JOSEPH (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 20970 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 20.12.2016. 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. 20970 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. 20970 OF 2022 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20970/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT OF UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 24.01.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 9.6.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.09.2021 IN 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 →