THE ANCHALUMMOOD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.613, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's stay application (Ext.P6) within two months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. The Court ordered that any proceedings for recovery of amounts due from the petitioner under the assessment order (Ext.P2) shall be kept in abeyance until orders are passed on the stay application. The Court did not decide on the merits of the Section 80P deduction claim or the delay in filing the return. The primary direction was procedural, focusing on the expeditious disposal of the stay petition by the Tribunal.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Anchalummood Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. 613, is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society. It filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an assessment order for assessment year 2019-20. The assessment order rejected the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P, stating there was no evidence that the petitioner satisfied the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner had appealed this order to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and subsequently to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). A stay petition was also filed before the ITAT. The Revenue contended that the petitioner was not entitled to the deduction as the return for the relevant assessment year was not filed on time.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite not filing the return for the relevant assessment year in time? (Mixed question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax governs the field, rendering the assessment incorrect. The petitioner further stated an intention to apply for condonation of delay in filing the return under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. Revenue's Contention: The respondent Department argued that the petitioner is clearly not entitled to deduction under Section 80P because the petitioner did not file the return for the relevant assessment year in time.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Aggrieved by Ext.P2 order of assessment relating to assessment year 2019-20, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 4th respondent, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P5. A petition for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment order has also been filed as Ext.P6. 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.
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.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Department states that the petitioner is clearly not entitled to deduction under Section 80P as the petitioner did not file the WP(C) NO. 34810 OF 2022 3 return for the relevant assessment year in time.
Faced with this situation, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner intends to make an application for condoning the delay in filing the return for the relevant assessment year under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
Having regarding to the submissions made above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent Tribunal to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 application within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till such time as orders are passed on Ext.P6, any proceedings for recovery of amounts due from the petitioner under Ext.P2 order of assessment shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. GOPINATH P. JUDGE DK
WP(C) NO. 34810 OF 2022 4
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
More judgments on Section 80P
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Duddukuru Primary Agricultural Cooperative… vs ITO, Ward - 1, TadepalligudemITA 258/VIZ/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- Jijamata Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari… vs ITO Ward -1, BhandraITA 102/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shri Na vs Ari Khedut Sahkari Society Ltd…ITA 362/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
