THE MKD (MANNARKKAD) TALUK GOV. EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED P-630 vs. THE ADDITTIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/11935/2021HC KeralaKLHC01032505202108 June 2021Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in its writ jurisdiction, did not decide the substantive issue of the petitioner's eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Instead, considering the nature of the issues and arguments, the Court directed the 2nd respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) to consider and dispose of the stay petition (Ext.P3(a)) filed along with the statutory appeal within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the judgment. Pending the disposal of the stay petition, all coercive action pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) was ordered to be kept in abeyance. The Court did not address any other issues or leave any specific points undecided, focusing solely on expediting the stay petition's disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, MKD (Mannarkkad) Taluk Gov. Employees Co-op. Credit Society Limited, is a co-operative society providing credit facilities. For the assessment year 2018-19, it claimed a deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This claim was rejected by the Assessing Officer through an order of assessment (Ext.P1). The petitioner filed a statutory appeal against Ext.P1 before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (2nd respondent) and also filed a stay petition (Ext.P3(a)) pending the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2018-19? The petitioner contended that it is a co-operative society engaged in providing credit facilities to its members and therefore eligible for the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The revenue's contention, as evidenced by the rejection of the claim in the assessment order, was that the petitioner was not entitled to the deduction. The judgment does not explicitly detail the revenue's specific arguments beyond the assessment order's outcome, nor does it name any specific precedents or circulars relied upon by either party.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P(2)(a)(i)

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 TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 11935 OF 2021 PETITIONER : THE MKD (MANNARKKAD) TALUK GOV. EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED P-630 MANNARKKAD P.O., PALAKKAD – 678 582, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, UMA N.V. BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS : 1. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI – 110 001 2. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI – 110 001, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 11935 OF 2021 2

JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Co-operative Society allegedly carrying on the business of providing credit facilities to its members. In the assessment proceedings for the year 2018-19, Petitioner claimed the benefit of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, by Ext.P1 order of assessment, the claim for deduction under Section 80P was rejected. Challenging Ext.P1, an appeal has been preferred before the 2nd respondent. A stay petition has also been preferred, as is evident from Ext.P3(a).

2.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel, who took notice on behalf of the department.

3.

Considering the nature of the issues involved and the arguments advanced, I am of the view that the writ petition itself can be disposed of by directing consideration of the stay petition filed along with the statutory appeal in a time bound manner. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of Ext.P3(a) stay petition filed along with the statutory appeal. The stay petition shall be considered and disposed of within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All WP(C) NO. 11935 OF 2021 3 coercive action pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the stay petition. Petitioner shall furnish a copy of this judgment to the 2nd respondent for appropriate action. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE RKM

WP(C) NO. 11935 OF 2021 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : P1 : COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2018-19. P2 : COPY OF THE S.O.NO.3296(E) ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI. P2(a) : COPY OF THE S.O.NO.3297(E) ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI P3 : COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3 (a) : COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL/ JOINT/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI. P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. (C).NO.5849/2021.

More judgments on Section 80P(2)(a)(i)

All 2,347 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P(2)(a)(i) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →