MANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.9701 V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/30626/2012

AI Insights

The case involves two cooperative banks, Mangalam Service Co-operative Bank Limited and Edarikode Service Co-operative Bank Limited, challenging notices issued by the Income Tax Department under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioners argued that they are not 'persons' as defined under the Act, and thus the notices were without jurisdiction. The court examined the definitions and provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly Sections 2(31) and 142(1), and concluded that cooperative societies are indeed 'persons' under the Act. The court also noted that the ongoing proceedings related to Section 133(6) of the Act were not comparable to the current case, as the terms and purposes of these sections differ significantly.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699717 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-01-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Abdu Rahiman V. District Collector, Malappuram (2009(4) KLT 485)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: P RAMAKRISHNAN; C KUMAR; PRATAP VARGHESE
• Keywords: Co-operative societies; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Notices; Section 133(6); Section 142(1)
• Section: 142(1); 133(6); 2(31)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY 2013/12TH POUSHA 1934 WP(C).No. 30626 of 2012 (C) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. MANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.9701, PO MANGALAM, MALAPPURAM-676 561, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ABDUL MAJEED V.M. 2. EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. F.10739, EDARIKODE PO, MALAPPURAM-676 501, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ABDUL JALEEL K. BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD III, TIRUR, OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARIFF BAZAR, TOWN HALL ROAD, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-676 101. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARIFF BAZAR, TOWN HALL ROAD, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-676 101. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CIB), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682 031. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,MINSTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI-110 001. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.30626/2012 C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21-7-2010 IN WPC NO. 22796/2010. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 4-11-2010 IN WPC NO. 33520/2010. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16-3-2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 24-3-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 6-6-2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF EXPLANATION DATED 20-06-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7- TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 30-11-2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P8- TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 12-03-2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P9- TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 26-11-2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.30626 OF 2012(C) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2013 J U D G M E N T Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue. 2. Petitioners are Co-operative Societies. First petitioner has been issued Exts.P3, P5 and P7 notices and the 2nd petitioner has been issued Exts.P8 and P9 notices. By these notices, information as provided under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act is called for from the petitioners. It is challenging these notices the writ petition has been filed and the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are not “persons” as contemplated in Section 142(1)of the Act. Therefore, according to him, the notices are without jurisdiction and are illegal. 3. In support of the above contention, counsel contended that on an earlier occasion, notices were issued by the Income Tax Department to Co-operative Societies, invoking the power WPC.No. 30626/2012 :2 : under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act and that those notices were challenged before this court. It is stated that the notices were upheld by the Single Bench and Division Bench of this court and that in an SLP filed, the Apex Court has issued notice and stayed the proceedings. On this basis Counsel seeks interference of this court, in this writ petition. 4. From the submission made on behalf of the petitioners itself, it is obvious that the proceedings which are the subject matter of the SLP now pending before the Apex Court were under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, where as the impugned notices which are called in question in this writ petition, are issued under Section 142(1) of the Act. Section 142 (1) enables the Assessing Officer to require the persons mentioned in the Section to furnish the information as mentioned therein. The expression “person” has been defined in Section 2 (31) of the Act. 5. A combined reading of Section 142(1) and Section 2 (31), in my view, leads to the only conclusion that Co-operative Societies like petitioners herein are also “persons” as defined in the Income Tax Act. If that be so, notices which are impugned in WPC.No. 30626/2012 :3 : this writ petition cannot be held as issued without jurisdiction. 6. In so far as the proceedings which are pending before the Apex Court are concerned, as I have already stated, those were initiated under Sections 133(6) of the Act. The terms of Section 133(6) and Section 142(1) are incomparable and therefore the pending proceedings before the Apex Court cannot be of any assistance to the petitioners. Even if it is assumed that the proceedings are of any relevance, since this court is bound by the Division Bench judgment of this court, the fact that the Apex Court has stayed the judgment is no reason to entertain the writ petition. The legal position in this behalf has been clarified by a Division Bench of this court in the judgment in Abdu Rahiman V. District Collector, Malappuram (2009(4) KLT 485). Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ "