KADAKKARAPPALLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/29TH MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 4378 of 2014 (V) --------------------------- PETITIONER : ---------------------- KADAKKARAPPALLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. 1125 KADAKKARAPPALLY P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688529 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. P. VENUGOPAL. BY ADV. SMT.K.N.RAJANI RESPONDENTS : -------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ARATTUKULAKKARA COMPLEX OPPOSITE GENERAL HOSPITAL, AN PURAM, ALAPPUZHA-688011. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KERA BHAVAN, KOCHI-682011. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/-

WP(C).No. 4378 of 2014 (V) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : ------------------------------------- EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 7.3.2013. EXT.P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.04.2013. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.04.2013. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) 27953/2013 DATED 13.11.2013. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 31.1.2014. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 OF THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.C. No.4378 OF 2014 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2014. JUDGMENT Challenging Ext.P1 assessment order passed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner availed a statutory remedy by filing Ext.P2 appeal along with P3 petition for stay, before the 2nd respondent. Because of the coercive proceedings, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(c) No.27953 of 2013, which was disposed of as per Ext.P4 judgment dated 13.11.2013, whereby the Appellate Authority was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 petition for stay. It was accordingly that the matter was considered and Ext.P5 order came to be passed, whereby interim order was granted subject to satisfaction of 50% of the disputed liability by way of two equal monthly instalments to be effected on or before 15.02.2014 and the next one on or before 15.03.2014. This in turn is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The main contention of the petitioner as put forward by

W.P.C.No.4378 of 2014 2 the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner is entitled to have the benefit of exemption by virtue of being a Primary Agricultural Credit Society as envisaged under sub- section (4) of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. It is stated that the petitioner has been issued necessary certificates in this regard by the competent authority of the Co-operative Department, which however has not been properly evaluated by the assessing authority, while passing the impugned order. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank however points out that the facts and figures have been meticulously analysed by the assessing authority, who has categorically observed in the impugned order that the petitioner’s activity in the alleged agricultural sector is abysmally low and that the principal business carried out by the assessee is that transaction of banking and purchase and sale of coir products. The facts and figures have been discussed in Ext.P1 are sought to be presented in service in this regard. 4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the

W.P.C.No.4378 of 2014 3 subject matter of dispute being pending consideration before the Appellate Authority, it will not be appropriate for this Court to express anything on the merit of the case. The Appellate Authority has considered and dealt with the issue in accordance with law. The only interference possible is to grant some breathing time to the petitioner to satisfy the liability imposed by the Appellate Authority vide Ext.P5 order. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to clear the liability imposed as per Ext.P5 by way of ‘four’ equal monthly instalments, the first of which shall be effected on or before 10.03.2014, to be followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 10th of the succeeding months and to satisfy the security for the balance amount as ordered in Ext.P5. It is made clear that if any default is committed by the petitioner in this regard, it will be open for the petitioner to proceed with further steps for realisation of the due amount in accordance with law. The Appeal shall be considered and finalised by the Appellate Authority as expeditiously as possible.

W.P.C.No.4378 of 2014 4 The writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of the writ petition, before the respondents, for further steps.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp