THOTTIPPAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/16830/2022HC KeralaKLHC01033761202225 May 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it noted that the petitioner had already preferred an appeal (Ext.P2) before the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) and that this appeal was pending. Therefore, the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in a time-bound manner. The 3rd respondent was directed to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal expeditiously, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. All coercive proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) were to be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the appeal. No finding was made on the substantive issues raised by the petitioner.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Thottippal Service Co-operative Bank Limited, a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, received an assessment order dated 30.03.2022 from the Income Tax Officer. The assessing officer rejected the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P, stating that there was insufficient evidence to establish the petitioner's status as a Primary Agricultural Credit Society as defined by the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal (Ext.P2) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The petitioner argued that the assessing officer failed to consider the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, which was delivered prior to the assessment order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessing officer erred by not considering the Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax while passing the assessment order, particularly concerning the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the assessment order was passed subsequent to the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, and that this crucial judgment was not considered by the assessing officer, thereby vitiating the assessment. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding this issue.

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 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1944 W.P.(C) NO.16830 OF 2022 PETITI ONER: THOTTIPPAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, THOTTIPPAL, THRISSUR, PIN-680 310 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. SHAIJU BY ADVS. K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR G.REMADEVI RAJATH R NATH HARIMA HARIHARAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(5), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSSUR, PIN-680 001. 2 THE ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI-110 001. 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI-110 001. SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2- W.P.(C) NO.16830 OF 2022 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.16830 of 2022 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of May, 2022

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 30.03.2022. 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 3rd 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] was not considered by the assessing officer though the assessment order was rendered subsequent to the Supreme Court Judgment.

3.

Since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal

-3- W.P.(C) NO.16830 OF 2022 as Ext.P2 and the same is pending consideration before the 3rd 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 3rd respondent to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till then, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE bpr

-4- W.P.(C) NO.16830 OF 2022

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30-03-2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 03-05-2022 AGAINST EXT.P1. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 03-05-2022 IN EXT.P2 APPEAL.

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →