ANAND FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the appeal. Instead, the Court acknowledged that the petitioner had already preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) and that this appeal was pending consideration. Therefore, the High 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 Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 (the appeal) as expeditiously as possible. Furthermore, the Court ordered that no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 (the assessment order) until the disposal of the appeal. The issue of whether the deduction under Section 80P was rightly denied was expressly left undecided by the High Court, as it was a matter for the appellate authority.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Anand Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, received an assessment order dated 28.09.2021 (Ext.P1). The assessing officer rejected the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P, stating there was no evidence that the petitioner met the criteria for a Primary Agricultural Credit Society under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner filed an appeal (Ext.P3) before the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre. In the appeal, 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 rendered prior to the assessment order.
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 contemplated under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without considering the binding judgment of the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax. The assessment order was issued after the Supreme Court's decision, and therefore, the assessing officer should have taken it into account. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in response to the petitioner's arguments before the High Court. The revenue's role in the writ petition was primarily in response to the petitioner's prayer for a time-bound disposal of the appeal.
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 28.09.2021. 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 Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.
While assailing the assessment order before the 2nd 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
WP(C) NO. 6951 OF 2022 3 officer though the assessment order was rendered subsequent to the Supreme Court Judgment.
Since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal as Ext.P3 and the same is pending consideration before the 2nd 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 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3, as expeditiously as possible.
Till the disposal of the appeal, no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJM
WP(C) NO. 6951 OF 2022 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 →- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
