M/S. MANNARKKAD TALUK CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD,. vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/30865/2022HC KeralaKLHC01065503202229 September 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 appeal. Instead, it directed the appellate authority (2nd respondent, National Faceless Appeal Centre) to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) expeditiously, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the judgment. The Court also ordered that no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the appeal is disposed of. It was clarified that the appeal would be considered on merits only if the appellate authority decided to condone any delay in filing the appeal. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Mannarkkad Taluk Co-operative Employees Co-op. Society Ltd., a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, is challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1) issued by the respondent revenue. The assessment order rejected the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P. The ground for rejection was the alleged lack of evidence demonstrating that the petitioner satisfied the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society as defined under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner had filed an appeal (Ext.P2) against this assessment order before the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which was pending.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order rejecting the deduction under Section 80P is valid, considering the petitioner's claim that the Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax; 2021 (1) KLT 485 governs the field and renders the assessment incorrect? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 80P of the Income Tax Act). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner contends that the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax; 2021 (1) KLT 485 governs the present case, implying that the assessment order, which rejected the deduction under Section 80P, is 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. THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 7TH ASWINA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 30865 OF 2022 PETITIONER: 1 M/S. MANNARKKAD TALUK CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD, NO. P 629, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678582 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.K. MOHANDAS, AGED 56 YEARS BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE DELHI,PIN - 110001 REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ADV. JOSE JOSEPH, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC No.30865 of 2022 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 29th day of September, 2022 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 2nd 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.P2 and the same is pending consideration WPC No.30865 of 2022 3 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (2nd 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 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2, as expeditiously as possible within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

5.

Till the disposal of the appeal, no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1. It is made clear that the appeal may be considered on merits only if the appellate authority decides to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The writ petition is disposed of as above. GOPINATH P. JUDGE SKP/29-09

WPC No.30865 of 2022 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30865/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DTD. 29-03-2022 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 10-09-2022 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 10-09-2022 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 06-09-2022 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NILP.A.TO JUDGE

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →