THE KATTOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/3325/2017

AI Insights

The case involves the Kattoor Service Co-operative Bank Limited, which challenged an assessment order for the year 2009-10 issued by the Income Tax Officer. The bank argued that the issue was covered by a previous judgment of the Kerala High Court in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax. The bank had filed an appeal against the assessment order, which was accompanied by a delay condonation petition. Additionally, the bank challenged the rejection of its rectification application. The court found that the matter was already under the appellate authority's consideration and thus declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755463 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2016 (2) KLT 535]
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: C A JOJO; JACOB CHACKO; MATHEWS JOSEPH
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Exemption; Income Tax; Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society; Rectification Application
• Section: 2(5)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/12TH MAGHA, 1938 WP(C).No. 3325 of 2017 (M) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- THE KATTOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO.426, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VIJAYAKUMAR T.V., AGED 49 YEARS, KATTOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN:680 702. BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(5) RANGE 2, THRISSUR-680 001. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THRISSUR-680 001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: msv/ WP(C).No. 3325 of 2017 (M) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) IRINJALAKUDA DATED 15.3.2016. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21.11.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 24.11.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION PETITION DATED 10.1.2017 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE REJECTION NOTICE NO.WD-2(5)/ PAN:AACAT3937A/154/2016-17 DATED 16.1.2017 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL WITH A DELAY CONDONATION PETITION DATED 11.1.2017 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE msv/ K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. ===================== W.P.(C)No.3325 of 2017 - M ========================= Dated this the 01st day of February, 2017 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is before this Court contending that the assessment order for the year 2009-10 is challenged in appeal, which is produced as Ext.P6, which is filed along with a delay of 18 days. 2. The contention taken is that the issue itself is covered by a judgment of this Court in Chirakkal Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2016 (2) KLT 535]. When an appeal has been instituted, it is for the assessee to approach the Appellate Authority with a stay application, pointing out the decision of this Court in an identical issue and get stay of the assessment order. 3. One other challenge is against the rejection of the rectification application by Ext.P5. The question raised as to whether the petitioner is entitled to exemption as a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society is a mixed question of fact 2 W.P.(C)No.3325/2017 and law; the law regulating which is declared by the Division Bench in the cited decision. However, the ultimate decision in the subject case as to whether the petitioner on facts is entitled to exemption, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record; possible of adjudication in the confined jurisdiction of rectification. 4. When the appellate remedy has been invoked the petitioner cannot invoke the extra ordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner would have to pursue that remedy and hence, this Court declines jurisdiction under Article 226. The writ petition is rejected, leaving open the remedy of the petitioner to approach the appellate authority, before whom admittedly an appeal has already been instituted. Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB/01/02/2017 // true copy // P.A to Judge "