THE POLPULLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/21112/2022HC KeralaKLHC01043508202229 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 Appellate Authority (the 1st respondent, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's pending appeal (Ext.P3) expeditiously. The Court also ordered that no coercive steps would be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) and demand notices (Ext.P2 and P4) until the disposal of the appeal. The Court deemed it fit to dispose of the writ petition by directing the appellate authority to consider the appeal in a time-bound manner, as the appeal was already pending.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Polpully Service Co-operative Bank Limited, a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, received an assessment order dated December 19, 2019. The Assessing Officer 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 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 the field and renders the assessment incorrect.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order dated December 19, 2019, rejecting the deduction under Section 80P is incorrect in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax governs the present case, making the assessment order incorrect. Revenue's Contention: 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. WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 21112 OF 2022 PETITIONER/S: THE POLPULLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.F. 1198, POLPULLY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 552, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AYAKAR BHAVAN, SHAKTAN NAGAR, THRISSUR 680 001. 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, AAYKAR BHAVAN, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, PALAKKAD, 678 014. SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 21112 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 19.12.2019. 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 Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in a time bound manner.

WP(C) NO. 21112 OF 2022 3

4.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent 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 and Ext.P2 and P4 demand notices.

The writ petition is disposed of as above. GOPINATH P. JUDGE ajt

WP(C) NO. 21112 OF 2022 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21112/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT OF UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 4.01.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 9.6.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18. 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 →