KALLAMKUNNU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it acknowledged that the petitioner had already preferred an appeal (Ext.P2) against the assessment order (Ext.P1) before the 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 (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) was directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Until the appeal is decided, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order were ordered to be kept in abeyance.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Kallamkunnu Service Co-operative Bank Limited, is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society. The assessing officer issued an assessment order on March 21, 2022, rejecting the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P. The reason for rejection was the alleged lack of evidence demonstrating that the petitioner satisfied the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society as defined under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner has filed an appeal against this assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner contends that the Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax was not considered by the assessing officer, despite the assessment order being passed after this judgment.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessing officer erred in rejecting the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by failing to consider the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society as per the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act? 2. Whether the assessment order failed to consider the binding precedent of the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, particularly when the assessment was made subsequent to this judgment? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argues that the assessing officer did not consider the Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, which was delivered prior to the assessment order. The petitioner believes this judgment is relevant to their claim for deduction under Section 80P. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in response to the writ petition.
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 Primary Agricultural Credit Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Ext.P1 order of assessment was issued against the petitioner on 21.03.2022. 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.
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.
Since petitioner has already preferred an appeal as -3- W.P.(C) NO.16545 OF 2022 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. 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, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Till then, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE bpr
-4- W.P.(C) NO.16545 OF 2022
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 →- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
