M/S. THE OTTAPALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala, while acknowledging that the petitioner had already preferred an appeal (Ext.P2) before the 2nd respondent Appellate Authority, deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in a time-bound manner. The Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 expeditiously, at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Court clarified that the Appellate Authority should not insist on the deposit of 20% of the amount in dispute, given the nature of the petitioner's plea. The Court also ordered that no coercive steps shall be initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order until the appeal is decided. The issue of whether the assessing officer erred in not considering the Supreme Court judgment was implicitly left for the Appellate Authority to decide.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, M/s. The Ottapalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, received an assessment order dated February 21, 2021. The assessing officer rejected the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P, stating there was no evidence that the petitioner satisfied the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society as defined under the Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner challenged this assessment order before the Appellate Authority (2nd respondent), arguing 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 appeal (Ext.P2) was pending before the Appellate Authority.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessing officer erred by 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 dated February 21, 2021, particularly concerning the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P. Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was flawed as it was passed subsequent to the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others, and this crucial judgment was not considered by the assessing officer. The petitioner sought a direction for the Appellate Authority to consider this aspect. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding this issue.
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 Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Ext.P1 order of assessment was issued against the petitioner on 21.02.2021. 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 Co-operative Societies Act.
While assailing the assessment order before the 2nd respondent Appellate Authority, 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 the same is pending consideration before the 2nd
WP(C) NO. 12976 OF 2021 3 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 a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that the Appellate Authority shall not insist on deposit of 20% of the amount in dispute considering the nature of the case that has been pleaded by the petitioner. Till such time, no coercive steps shall be initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM
WP(C) NO. 12976 OF 2021 4
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
