Ot Income Tax v. Sri. Bilur Gurubasava Pattna Sahakara

IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BBNGALURU| DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF JANUARY, 2020 BEFORE THR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT. mWRIT PETITION NO.1879 OF 2020 (TIT) BETWEEN: SAGAR CREDIT CO OPERATIVE SOCIBKTY LIDMAIN ROAD, N H 66,BYNDOOR, UDUPI DISTRICT 57060214,REP BY ITS CBO MR. KUSTA BILLAVA. .. PRHTITION (BY SRI. MAHESH R UPPIN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, C R BUILDING, N G ROAD, ATTAVARA, MANGALURU 575001. 2.INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, | ADI-UDUPI MALPE ROAD, UDUPI 5/6103. — RBSPONDENTS| (BY SRI. JEEVAN J NEERALGI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 8&22/ OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE.ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.11.2019 PASSED BY THE R-2|MARKED AS ANNBXURE-A OR IN THE ALTBRNATIVE AND BIC.| THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY|HEARING,THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Petitioner, a society being an assessee, 1S invoking thewrit jurisdiction of this court for assailing the assessmentorder dated 28.11.2019 passed by the 2[2@]respondent hereinat Annexure-A, whereby the benefit otherwise available to itin terms of Section 8OP of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has beendenied. 2 |On request, the learned Senior Panel Counselori.Jeevan J Neeralgi accepts notice for respondents andmakes submission in justification of the impugned order; healso submits that since the petitioner admittedly has filedstatutory appeal, he cannot pursue plural remedies. 3.|Having heard the learned counsel for the partiesand having perused the Petition Papers, this court is of aconsidered opinion that the question as to availability of thebenefit under section SOP of the Act in favour of societies ofthe kind having been answered in favour of the Assessee by aDivision Bench of this court vide judgment dated 9.2.2014 inIncome Tax Appeal No.5006/2013 between the Commissioner ot Income Tax Vs. Sri. Bilur Gurubasava Pattna Sahakara sangha Niyamitha, Bagalkot. In the above circumstances, the petitioner’s subject appeal needs to be considered by the 1[5/]respondentexpeditiously and without insisting upon statutory pre- deposit. Writ Petition is disposed off, ordering accordingly. Time for compliance is three months. No costs. cbc Sd/-|JUDGE|