THONNAKKAL AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/1426/2021HC KeralaKLHC01004049202129 November 2021Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS6 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the rectification order passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was patently incorrect. The Court reasoned that the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2021) declared that the Full Bench decision of the High Court was not good law and restored the position as laid down in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The Supreme Court held that for Section 80P deduction, it is sufficient for the assessee to be a co-operative society, and further classification is unnecessary. The expression 'providing credit facilities to its members' is not limited to agricultural credit alone, and Section 80P should be construed to further the co-operative movement. Therefore, the rectification was invalid as the Supreme Court's declaration of law relates back to the time the section was in force. The original appellate order allowing the deduction was correct. The Court set aside the rectification order (Ext.P5) and stated that the original appellate order would revive, obviating the need for reconsideration.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Thonnakkal Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., claimed deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2013-14. The Income Tax Officer rejected the claim, finding the society not to be a primary agricultural credit society. The Appellate Authority initially allowed the appeal, relying on the High Court's decision in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. However, this decision was later overruled by a Full Bench of the High Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Consequently, the Appellate Authority rectified its earlier order under Section 154, holding the society ineligible for deduction. This rectification order is challenged by the petitioner. Crucially, the Supreme Court subsequently reversed the Full Bench decision in Mavilayi, restoring the position of law as laid down in Chirakkal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in rectifying its earlier order under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on a subsequent Full Bench decision of the High Court that was later overturned by the Supreme Court? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argues that the rectification under Section 154 was erroneous because the subsequent Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2021) validated the original assessment order which had allowed the deduction under Section 80P, relying on the Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. decision. The Supreme Court's ruling effectively nullified the basis for rectification. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's contentions regarding the rectification order. However, the revenue would likely have supported the Appellate Authority's action in rectifying the order to align with the then-prevailing Full Bench decision of the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 154

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 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 1426 OF 2021 PETITIONER: THONNAKKAL AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO HW 21, SOCIETY BUILDING, THONNAKKAL POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 317, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SAHADEVAN P BY ADVS. SHRI.K.P.PRADEEP SHRI.HAREESH M.R. SRI.T.T.BIJU SMT.T.THASMI SMT.M.J.ANOOPA RESPONDENTS: 1 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DEPARTEMENT OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKKAR BHAVAN, KOWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, PRESS CLUB ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001 BY ADVS. SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2021, THE COURT ON 29.11.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.1426/21 -:2:- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.1426 of 2021 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of November, 2021

JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Co-operative Society, which claims to be entitled to the benefit of deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for short 'the Act') for the assessment year 2013-14. The claim for deduction was rejected after finding that petitioner is not a primary agricultural credit society. The order of assessment was challenged in appeal by the petitioner.

2.

Relying upon the decision of this Court in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kannur v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2016 (2) KHC 726), the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the assessment order. In the meantime, the decision in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kannur v. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) was referred for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court. By judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut (2019 (2) KHC 287), the Full Bench declared that the law laid down by the Division Bench in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kannur v. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) was not good law and overruled the same.

3.

On noticing the reversal of the law, the Appellate Authority relying upon the decision of this Court in Kil Kotagiri Tea & Coffee Estates Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (1989 (42) Taxman 33) held that its earlier decision in the statutory appeal amounted to a mistake apparent on the face of the record due to the subsequent decision rendered by the Full Bench and therefore constitutes a ground for rectification under section 154 of the Act. Thereafter the Appellate Authority, in exercise of the powers of rectification held that the petitioner was not entitled for the deduction claimed under section 80P of the Act on the ground that the certificate produced from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies was not sufficient to treat the petitioner as a primary agricultural credit society. The said order of rectification under section 154 of the Act issued by the Appellate Authority is impugned in this writ petition.

4.

It is necessary to mention that, in the meantime, the Full Bench decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut (supra) was reversed by the Supreme Court and held that the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in (2019 (2) KHC 287) does not lay down the correct law and restored the position of law as declared by Chirakkal Service Co- operative Bank Ltd., Kannur v. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra). The present writ petition is filed, in view of the change of law, brought in on account of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2021 (1) KLT 485) (hereinafter referred to as Mavilayi 2021).

5.

In the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme court held that for the purpose of eligibility for deduction under section 80P, the assessee must be a co-operative society, and for that purpose, it was unnecessary to prove any further as to whether the co-operative society is classified as 'X' or 'Y'. It was also held that the expression 'providing credit facilities to its members' does not necessarily mean an agricultural credit alone and that section 80P being a beneficial provision, must be construed with the object of furthering the co- operative movement generally.

6.

In view of the declaration of law by the Supreme Court in Mavilayi 2021, the rectification carried out by the Appellate Authority is patently incorrect. There was no option for the Appellate Authority to resort to section 154 since by virtue of declaration of law by the Supreme Court, it is presumed that the said declaration relates back to the time from which the section was in force. Viewed in such a manner, the judgment of the Appellate Authority at the first instance relying upon the decision in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kannur v. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) holding that petitioner was entitled for deduction under section 80P is correct.

Therefore Ext.P5 is liable to be set aside it being against the law declared by the Supreme Court. I do so.

7.

Since this Court is setting aside Ext.P6, the order of the Appellate Authority at the first instance will revive and hence there is no requirement to direct a reconsideration. This writ petition is allowed as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE vps

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1426/2021 PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO. AABAT0019Q DATED 15.10.2015 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO. ITA NO. 115/TVM/CIT(A)/TVM/2015-16 DATED 05.03.2019 FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN ITA 311/COCH/2019 FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2019 IN ITA 311/COCH/2019 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ITA NO. 115/ TVM/CIT(A)/TVM/2015-16 DATED 16.12.2019 FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION LETTER WITH ANNEXURE ORDER NO. AABAT0019Q/2013-14 DATED WITH 13.01.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →