M/S. PERALASSERI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court did not decide the merits of the appeal. Instead, it directed the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's appeals (Exts.P2 and P5) expeditiously and in a time-bound manner. The Court noted that the petitioner had already preferred appeals before the appellate authority, which were pending. Consequently, all coercive proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) and the penalty order (Ext.P4) were ordered to be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the appeals. The Court did not address the specific legal arguments regarding Section 80P or the applicability of the Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank judgment on the merits.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, M/s. Peralasseri Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is a Service Co-operative Bank. The 1st respondent, the Assessing Officer, issued an assessment order on 13.04.2021, disallowing the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P and adding the disallowed amount to the returned income. The petitioner also faced a penalty under Section 270A. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeals before the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), along with delay condonation applications. The petitioner argued that the assessing officer failed to consider the Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others, despite the assessment order being passed after this judgment. The writ petition was filed challenging the assessment and penalty orders.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessing officer erred in not considering the Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others while passing the assessment order, which was issued subsequent to the said judgment? (Question of law and fact, concerning the assessment process and application of precedent). Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank was not considered by the assessing officer, despite its relevance and the timing of the assessment order. The petitioner relied on this judgment to support its claim for deduction. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in response to the petitioner's arguments or the issues raised.
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 Service Co-operative Bank registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 [for short, the Act]. Ext.P1 order of assessment was issued by the 1 st respondent against the petitioner on 13.04.2021. In the assessment order, petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P was declined and the sum so declined was added to the returned income.
Aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order, petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the 2 nd respondent along with an application to condone the delay, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P3. Similarly the order of penalty imposed against the petitioner under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as per Ext.P4 has also been challenged before the 2 nd
WP(C) NO. 24877 OF 2021 1 respondent through Ext.P5. 3. While assailing the assessment order before the 2 nd respondent, petitioner has sought to canvass that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others [2021 (1) KLT 485] was not considered by the assessing officer, though the assessment order was rendered subsequent to the Supreme Court Judgment.
Since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal as Ext.P2 and Ext.P5 and those are pending consideration before the 2 nd respondent, I deem it fit that this writ petition be disposed of directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeals in a time bound manner.
Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2 nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P2 and P5 appeals, as expeditiously as possible, in a time bound manner.
WP(C) NO. 24877 OF 2021 2
Till then all coercive proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 and P4 shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE AMV/11/11//2021
WP(C) NO. 24877 OF 2021 3
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 →- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga And Ors vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co-Operative Housing Society LTD And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
