CHERPALACHERI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala, while acknowledging the pending appeal before the 2nd respondent (Appellate Authority), directed the Appellate Authority to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's appeal expeditiously, within six months from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment. The Court clarified that the Appellate Authority should not insist on the deposit of 20% of the disputed amount, considering the nature of the petitioner's plea. Furthermore, the Court ordered that no coercive steps should be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order until the appeal is decided. The Court did not decide on the merits of the Section 80P deduction claim itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of ensuring a timely and fair hearing of the appeal.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Cherpalacheri Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, received an assessment order dated 10.04.2021. The assessing officer rejected the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P, stating that there was no evidence that the petitioner satisfied the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society under the Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi. 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.
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 Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was erroneous as the assessing officer did not consider the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others, which was delivered prior to the assessment order. The petitioner contended that this judgment was crucial for determining their eligibility for the deduction under Section 80P. Revenue's Contentions: No specific contentions were recorded for the revenue in the judgment.
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 10.04.2021. 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 respondent, I deem it fit that this writ petition be disposed of WP(C) NO. 14745 OF 2021 3 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. 14745 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 →- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026
