Https://Hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/Hcservices v. M/S. Veerakeralam Primary Agriculturalco-Operative Credit Society Dated 05.07.2016 Made In Taxcase Appeal Nos.735, 755 Of 2014 And 460 Of 2015[Hereinafter 'Veer

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR K293 Ponneri Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit SocietyRep. By its SecretaryA.Krishnasamy, M/51S/o.R.AngamuthuPonneri, Kottaiyangalam PostUdumalpet TalukTiruppur District .. PetitionerVs. The Income Tax OfficerWard-2 (4) TPRIncome Tax OfficerNo.121, 60 Feet RoadTiruppur – 641 602 .. Respondent Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari callingfor the entire records relating to the impugned order passed bythe respondent in Order No.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2018-19/1014538806(1) dated 24.12.2018 and quash the same. Ms.R.Hemalatha, leaned counsel representing the counselon record for writ petitioner and Mr.A.N.R.Jayaprathap, learnedStanding Counsel for Income Tax, who accepts notice on behalf of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sole respondent are before this Court. 2.With consent of learned counsel on both sides, mainwrit petition is taken up. 3. It is submitted without any disputation ordisagreement by both the learned counsel that the instant writpetition is covered by an earlier order made by this Court beingorder dated 18.07.2019 in WP No.3385 of 2019 and WMP No.3666 of2019. The said order dated 18.07.2019 reads as follows: 'Mr.B.Raveendran, learned counsel on record forwrit petitioner and Mr.A.N.R.Jayaprathap, learned JuniorStanding counsel (Income Tax) on behalf of lone officialrespondent are before this Court. 2. With consent of learned counsel on bothsides, main writ petition is taken up and is beingdisposed of. 3. Owing to the nature of the trajectory whichthe hearing has taken today, the entire writ petitionnow turns on a very narrow compass. Therefore, it maynot be necessary to set out facts in great detail. 4. Suffice to say that the writ petitioner is aPrimary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society,registered under 'Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act,1983' ['TNCS Act' for brevity] 5. The instant writ petition has been filed,assailing an order dated 24.12.2018 made by the loneofficial respondent and this order bears reference OrderNo:ITBA/ AST/S/143(3)/2018-19/1014536712(1). This orderdated24.12.2018bearingreference'OrderNo:ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2018-19/ 1014536712(1)', shallhereinafter be referred to as 'impugned order'. To benoted, impugned order is an assessment order, pertainingto Assessment Year 2016-17 qua writ petitioner and theimpugned order has been made by the lone officialrespondent under Section 143(3) of 'Income Tax Act,1961' ['IT Act' for brevity] 6. The pivotal submission is that the writpetitioner being a Cooperative Society, is entitled tovarious deductions enlisted / adumbrated under Section80P of IT Act. That Cooperative Societies akin to thewrit petitioner, which are registered under TNCS Act areentitled to claim deductions under various headsadumbrated under Section 80P of IT Act has been laiddown by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, SalemVs. Tiruchengode Agricultural Producers CooperativeMarketing Society Ltd., [hereinafter 'TiruchengodeAgricultural Producers Cooperative Marketing Societycase' for brevity] vide order dated 02.08.2016 made inTax Case Appeal Numbers.484 to 487 and 490 of 2016. 'Tax Case Appeals' shall be referred to as 'TCAs' for thesake of brevity.7. The aforesaid Tiruchengode AgriculturalProducers Cooperative Marketing Society case wasrendered by Hon'ble Division Bench based on M/s.Veerakeralam Primary Agricultural Co-operative CreditSociety principle being principle laid down by anotherHon'ble Division Bench vide judgment in Commissioner ofIncome Tax Vs. M/s. Veerakeralam Primary AgriculturalCo-operative Credit Society dated 05.07.2016 made in TaxCase Appeal Nos.735, 755 of 2014 and 460 of 2015[hereinafter 'Veerakeralam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society principle' for brevity]. Case Appeals' shall be referred to as 'TCAs' for thesake of brevity.7. The aforesaid Tiruchengode AgriculturalProducers Cooperative Marketing Society case wasrendered by Hon'ble Division Bench based on M/s.Veerakeralam Primary Agricultural Co-operative CreditSociety principle being principle laid down by anotherHon'ble Division Bench vide judgment in Commissioner ofIncome Tax Vs. M/s. Veerakeralam Primary AgriculturalCo-operative Credit Society dated 05.07.2016 made in TaxCase Appeal Nos.735, 755 of 2014 and 460 of 2015[hereinafter 'Veerakeralam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society principle' for brevity]. 8. In the aforesaid cases, Hon'ble DivisionBench addressed itself to the question as to whetherPrimary Agricultural Societies carrying on the businessof providing credit facilities to its members areentitled to claim deductions under Section 80P of IT Actand the same was answered in the affirmative. 9. Reverting to the case on hand, a perusal ofthe impugned order reveals that it turns on three heads,the same as set out in the impugned order reads asfollows: '(i) Deduction under chapter VIA (ii) Investments/advances/loans (iii) High cash in hand shown in balance sheet ascompared to preceding year' 10. With regard to (i) supra, as the Hon'bleDivision Bench of this Hon'ble Court has already heldthat Cooperative Societies akin to the writ petitionerare entitled to claim deductions under various headsadumbrated under Section 80P of IT Act, the same doesnot survive. However, this Court is informed thatIncome Tax Department is carrying both TiruchengodeAgricultural Producers Cooperative Marketing Societycase and Veerakeralam Primary Agricultural Co-operativeCredit Society TCAs to Hon'ble Supreme Court. On thisbasis, this Court has passed an order dated 27.06.2019in W.P.No.2552 of 2019 & etc., batch interalia to theeffect that this question is subject to the outcome ofthe Special Leave Petitions said to have been filed bythe department. To be noted, this aforesaid order dated27.06.2019 in W.P.No.2552 of 2019 & etc., batch came tobe passed by this Court as that was the lone issuetherein, but in the instant case, that issue isdovetailed with two other issues namely (ii) and (iii)supra. 11. In the aforesaid backdrop, learned counselfor writ petitioner submitted that the writ petitionerwill opt for the alternate remedy of a statutoryappeal with regard to those aspects of the impugned orders excluding the aforesaid issue, which is coveredby Veerakeralam Primary Agricultural Co-operativeCredit Society and Tiruchengode Agricultural ProducersCooperative Marketing Society principles. 12. This takes us to the alternate remedyaspect. Alternate remedy is available to the writpetitioner by way of an appeal under Section 246A ofIT Act. 13. There is a time limit of 30 days prescribedfor preferring an appeal under Section 246A of IT Act,which lies to Commissioner (Appeals). 14. At the request of writ petitioner, timethat has been spent in the instant writ petition i.e.,time from the date of filing of instant writ petitionto the date on which this order is made availableshall stand excluded for computing limitation forfiling an appeal under Section 246A of IT Act. Evenafter such exclusion, if there is a delay, it is opento the writ petitioner to seek condonation of the sameunder Section 249(3) of IT Act and such a prayer forcondonation of delay shall be dealt with by theAppellate Authority on its own merits. 13. There is a time limit of 30 days prescribedfor preferring an appeal under Section 246A of IT Act,which lies to Commissioner (Appeals). 14. At the request of writ petitioner, timethat has been spent in the instant writ petition i.e.,time from the date of filing of instant writ petitionto the date on which this order is made availableshall stand excluded for computing limitation forfiling an appeal under Section 246A of IT Act. Evenafter such exclusion, if there is a delay, it is opento the writ petitioner to seek condonation of the sameunder Section 249(3) of IT Act and such a prayer forcondonation of delay shall be dealt with by theAppellate Authority on its own merits. 15. Before parting with this case, it isnecessary to mention that alternate remedy rule quaexercise of writ jurisdiction is a self imposedrestraint. It is a rule of discretion and it is not arule of compulsion. Though it is not an absolute rule,Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyawati Tandon Case [UnitedBank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others reportedin (2010) 8 SCC 110] held that it should be exercisedwith greater rigour in fiscal law statutes. Moreimportantly, in Satyawati Tondon case, Hon'ble SupremeCourt held that such a rule has to be applied withutmost rigour when it comes to cases involving taxes,cess, fees etc., In other words, when it comes tofiscal statutes, these rules have to be applied withgreater rigour and it is to be applied very strictlywith regard to recovery of taxes, CESS, fess etc.,Satyawati Tondon principle was reiterated by Hon'bleSupreme Court in K.C.Mathew case [Authorized Officer,State Bank of Travancore Vs. Mathew K.C. reported in(2018) 3 SCC 85]. Relevant paragraph in K.C.Mathewcase is paragraph 10 and the same reads as follows:'10. In Satyawati Tondon the High Court hadrestrained further proceedings under Section 13(4) ofthe Act. Upon a detailed consideration of thestatutory scheme under the SARFAESI Act, theavailability of remedy to the aggrieved under Section17 before the Tribunal and the appellate remedy underSection 18 before the Appellate Tribunal, the objectand purpose of the legislation, it was observed that a writ petition ought not to be entertained in view ofthe alternate statutory remedy available holding: (SCCpp.123 & 128, Paras 43 & 55) “43. Unfortunately, the High Courtoverlooked the settled law that the High Courtwill ordinarily not entertain a petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution if an effectiveremedy is available to the aggrieved person andthat this Rule applies with greater rigour inmatters involving recovery of taxes, cess,fees, other types of public money and the duesof banks and other financial institutions. Inour view, while dealing with the petitionsinvolving challenge to the action taken forrecovery of the public dues, etc., the HighCourt must keep in mind that the legislationsenacted by Parliament and State Legislaturesfor recovery of such dues are a code untothemselves inasmuch as they not only containcomprehensive procedure for recovery of thedues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievanceof any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all suchcases, the High Court must insist that beforeavailing remedy under Article 226 of theConstitution, a person must exhaust theremedies available under the relevant statute.55. It is a matter of serious concernthat despite repeated pronouncement of thisCourt, the High Courts continue to ignore theavailability of statutory remedies under theDRT Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercisejurisdiction under Article 226 for passingorders which have serious adverse impact on theright of banks and other financial institutionsto recover their dues. We hope and trust thatin future the High Courts will exercise theirdiscretion in such matters with greatercaution, care and circumspection.' 16. This writ petition is disposed of, leavingit open to the writ petitioner to avail alternateremedy of statutory appeal to Commissioner (Appeals)under Section 246A of IT Act, in the manner set outsupra in this order. 17. This writ petition is disposed of with theabove observations. No costs. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petition is closed.' Therefore, instant writ petitioner is also disposed ofobserving that this writ petition also will be governed by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ aforesaid earlier order, which has been extracted and reproducedsupra. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitionsare closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CSIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrargpaToThe Income Tax OfficerWard-2 (4) TPRIncome Tax OfficerNo.121, 60 Feet RoadTiruppur – 641 602.W.P.No.25543 of 2019 andW.M.P.Nos.25071 and 25072 of 2019AD(CO)CB(10/10/2019)