THE KUDAMALOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.93. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/20067/2022HC KeralaKLHC01041281202221 June 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it directed the 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 shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the disposal of the appeal. The primary finding of the Court was procedural: to ensure the appeal is heard and decided promptly. The substantive issue regarding the applicability of Section 80P and the Supreme Court judgment was left to be decided by the appellate authority.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Kudamaloor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an assessment order on 21.12.2019, rejecting the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P. The AO's reasoning was that the petitioner did not satisfy the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society as defined under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner filed an appeal against this assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). In the appeal, the petitioner argued that the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2021 (1) KLT 485] now governs the field and renders the assessment incorrect.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order 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 [2021 (1) KLT 485]? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the assessment order is incorrect because the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax governs the present case, implying that the deduction under Section 80P should have been allowed. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in this writ petition. The focus of the writ petition was on directing the appellate authority to expedite the appeal.

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. TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 20067 OF 2022 PETITIONER: THE KUDAMALOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.93., KUDAMALOOR.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: 1 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOTTAYAM., PIN -686 001. 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 2, KOTTAYAM, PIN 686 001. OTHER PRESENT: SRI. JOSE JOSEPH (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.20067/2022 -: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 21.12.2019. 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.

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

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20067/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21.12.2019 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 22.01.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.05.2022 IN WP(C).NO. 17199 OF 2022 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 →