UZHUVA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

WP(C)/8979/2014

AI Insights

The case involves Uzhava Service Co-operative Bank Limited, which filed a writ petition against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Alappuzha. The petitioner sought to quash the assessment order (Ext. P1) and prevent coercive action based on this order, arguing that they are a Primary Agricultural Credit Society eligible for deductions under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner contended that the recovery proceedings initiated before the expiry of the appeal period were arbitrary and illegal. The court heard arguments from both sides and decided to keep the coercive actions in abeyance until the statutory appeal period expired.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699121 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: WPC 6172/12
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: A K PREETHA; C ANILKUMAR
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Coercive Action; Primary Agricultural Credit Society; Recovery proceedings; Writ of Certiorari; Writ of Mandamus; Allowable Deductions
• Section: 80(P)

Judgement Text

"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 "