THE KANHIKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO F-1086, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/19290/2022HC KeralaKLHC01039612202215 June 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, while acknowledging the pendency of the appeal (Ext.P3) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent), did not decide on the merits of the case. The Court found it appropriate to direct the Tribunal to consider the appeal expeditiously. The Tribunal was instructed to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court 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 issue regarding the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P and the applicability of the Supreme Court judgment was expressly left undecided by the High Court, as it was to be adjudicated by the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Kanhikulam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, received an assessment order (Ext.P1) from the Income Tax Officer (1st respondent). The assessment order rejected the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P. The reason cited was the absence of evidence demonstrating that the petitioner met the criteria of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society as defined by the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner challenged this assessment order by filing an appeal (Ext.P3) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent). The petitioner contended that the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax; 2021 (1) KLT 485 now governs such matters and renders the assessment incorrect.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order rejecting the deduction under Section 80P is legally sustainable, considering the petitioner's status as a Primary Agricultural Credit Society under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Assessee's Contentions: - The petitioner argued that the assessment order is incorrect because 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 supports their claim for deduction. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue at this stage of the 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. WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 25TH JYAISHTA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 19290 OF 2022 PETITIONER: THE KANHIKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO F-1086, KANJIKULAM P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 596, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AJITHKUMAR. BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD - 678 014. 2 NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI - 110 001, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 3 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANADU, KOCHI - 682 030, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. BY ADV JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KERALA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P (C) No.19290/2022 -2-

J U D G M E N T 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. 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 3rd 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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent), I deem it fit that this writ petition be disposed of directing the Tribunal to consider the appeal in a time bound manner.

4.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3, as expeditiously as possible with a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of a this judgment.

.

5.

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

W.P (C) No.19290/2022 -3-

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19290/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 02-05-2017 Exhibit P2 COPY OF ORDER UNDER SECTION 250 FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08-10-2021 Exhibit P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21-05-2022 Exhibit P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21-05-2022

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →