THONNAKKAL AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES
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?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
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 →- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Ritik vs. State Of M.P.Madhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026