UZHUVA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that it is not proper for the concerned authority to proceed with coercive steps before the expiry of the statutory period for filing an appeal. The Court declared this position accordingly. The writ petition was disposed of with a clear direction that it would be open for the petitioner to approach the appellate authority if aggrieved by Ext. P4 and obtain appropriate orders. The coercive proceedings against the petitioner were ordered to be kept in abeyance until the expiry of the statutory time limit for filing an appeal. The Court did not decide on the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P or the allowability of other deductions, as the primary focus was on the procedural aspect of recovery proceedings.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Uzhuva Service Co-operative Bank Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order (Ext. P4) and seeking to prevent coercive recovery actions by the Income Tax Officer (respondent 2) based on an assessment order (Ext. P1) for Assessment Year 2009-10. The petitioner contended that the impugned order (Ext. P4) was served late, on February 26, 2014. The respondents conceded this fact. The petitioner also sought a declaration that it is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society eligible for deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act and that its claimed deductions are allowable. The petitioner further argued that initiation of recovery proceedings before the expiry of the appeal period is arbitrary and illegal.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the initiation of coercive recovery proceedings prior to the expiry of the statutory appeal period is arbitrary and illegal, and if so, what relief should be granted? (Question of law and fact, concerning the procedural fairness and legality of recovery actions). Assessee's Contentions: - The impugned order (Ext. P4) was served late, on February 26, 2014. - Coercive proceedings initiated before the expiry of the appeal period are arbitrary and illegal. - The society is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society eligible for deduction under Section 80P. - The claimed deductions are allowable. Revenue's Contentions: - Coercive proceedings are being pursued because the petitioner has not preferred any statutory appeal. - The fact of late service of Ext. P4 was conceded.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/6TH CHAITHRA, 1936 WP(C).No. 8979 of 2014 (V) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- UZHUVA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. A-305, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTANAKKAD, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688 531. BY ADVS.SMT.A.K.PREETHA SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), COCONUT DEVELOPMENT BOARD BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN-682 011. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, ALAPPUZHA-688 004. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING: Kss
WP(C).No. 8979 of 2014 (V) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: --------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2- A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13-3-2012 IN WPC 6172/12. EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31-1-2014 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------------ N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C) No. 8979 of 2014 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 27th day of March, 2014 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers : i) a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside Exts. P4 ii) a writ of mandamus directing the 2 nd respondent not to proceed with the coercive action against the petitioner in pursuance of Ext. P1 assessment order. iii) to declare that the petitioner society a Primary Agricultural Credit Society and is eligible deduction under Section 80 P of the Income Tax Act. iv) to declare that the heads under which deductions sought for by the petitioner are allowable deductions. v) to declare that the initiation of recovery proceedings prior to the expiry of appeal period is arbitrary and illegal and vi) be further pleased to issue such other writ, order or direction as are deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.
W.P.(C) No. 8979 of 2014 : 2 : 3. It is the case of the petitioner that Ext. P4 impugned order was served to the petitioner only on 26.02.2014, which position is conceded by the learned standing counsel for the respondents as well. The coercive proceedings are pursued only because of the fact that the petitioner has not preferred any statutory appeal, submits the learned standing counsel. 4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the Statute itself provides 60 days to challenge the impugned proceedings and this being the position, it is not proper for the concerned authority to proceed with coercive steps, before expiry of the statutory period. It is declared accordingly and the writ petition is disposed of, making it clear that it will be open for the petitioner to approach the appellate authority, if aggrieved of Ext. P4 and obtain appropriate orders. The coercive proceedings pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till expiry of the statutory time limit. Sd/- P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) kmd
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 →- M/S Jack And Jill vs. The Union Of INDIA And OrsGauhati · 5 Nov 2026
- Ms Akher Ali vs. The Union Of INDIAGauhati · 5 Nov 2026
- Paonta Hp Centre vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 5 Nov 2026
- M/S Multitech Agro INDIA (Opc) PVT LTD vs. The State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 5 Nov 2026
- Gopa Satya Madhava Subbarao vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 5 Nov 2026