Wp/144171/2020 Of Shri. Shankarling v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA|DHARWAD BENCH. DATED THIS THE 25 DAY OF MARCH 2021 BEFORE| THE HON’/BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM "W.P.NO.144171/2020 (1IT) BETWEEN SHRI. SHANKARLING CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT |SOUHARDA SAHAKARI, NIYAMIT,SANKESHWAR, SUBHAS ROAD,SANKESHWAR, DIST. BEALGAVI,REP. BY ITS CEO, SHRI RAMU,S/O. APPA KAPASE, AGED 78 YEARS. ... PETITIONER| (BY SRILH.R.KAMBIYAVAR, ADV. ANDSMT.PATRI SHASHIKALA K.)_SMT.PATRI SHASHIKALA K.)_ AND 1.)THE INCOME TAX OFFICER|WARD 1 (3), KIMJI BAI BUILDING,|OPP. CIVIL HOSPITAL, BELAGAVI-590001WARD 1 (3), KIMJI BAI BUILDING,|OPP. CIVIL HOSPITAL, BELAGAVI-590001 D> |O/O COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), HUBBALLI,CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING,NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580025|(APPEALS), HUBBALLI,CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING,NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580025| 3 CUTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.(ADMINISTRATION), KIMJI BAI BUILDING,|OPP. CIVIL HOSPITAL, BELAGAVI-590001(ADMINISTRATION), KIMJI BAI BUILDING,|OPP. CIVIL HOSPITAL, BELAGAVI-590001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRILY.V.RAVIRAJ, ADV.) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE.CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) TO DECLARE THAT THE,WORD “CO-OPERATIVE IN SECTION 2(19) OF THE I.T.ACT APPLIES|TO ALL IDENTITIES REGISTERED UNDER THE STATE LAW INCLUDINGA CO-OPERATIVE AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2(e) OF THE, KARNATGAKA SOQUHARDA SAHAKARI ACT, 1997 BY HARMONIOUSCONSTRUCTION OF BOTH THE ENACTMENTS. B) CONSEQUENTLYISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERBEARING NO.PAN: ITA NO.CIT(A)HUBLI/10118/2017-18DATED QO2.12.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-C WAS PASSED BY THE J2NRESPONDENT.. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B™.GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner-society was initially registered underthe Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. Later the| petitioner-society resolved to get the society registeredunder the provisions of under the Karnataka SouhardaSanakari Act, 1997 and the same was registered on.27.09.7001. ThesocietySubmittedItsreturnsON|28.09.2012 declaring gross total income to the tune of|Rs.36,87,999/-. After claiming deduction of Rs.36,87,999/-. under Section 80(P)(2)(a)(i) of Income Tax, Act, 1961.(hereinafter referred to as ‘I.T.Act’ for short). | 2.Respondent No.1 passed an order of assessment.by holding that petitioner-society is not entitled forexemption under Section 80(P)(2)(a)(i) of the I.T.Act. This| order was questioned by the _ petitioner-society hereibefore respondent No.2/appellate authority who by theimpugned order as per Annexure-C has confirmed theorder passed by the assessing authority. 3.The instant writ petition is filed by the society|questioning the order passed by the appellate authority as.per Annexure-C confirming the order of the assessingauthority. The petitioner-society also sought writ to declarethe word ‘co-operative’ incorporated in Section 2(19) of the.I.T.Act to be extended to all the registered societies as—defined under Section 2(e) of the Karnataka Souharda.Sahakari Act, 1997. 4Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner andlearned counsel for the respondents. 5.|It is stated across the bar that Insofar as.controversy relating to entities registered under the.Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 is concerned, the|SameIS|No|moreFes|integraThis|courtIn| W.P.No.48414/2018 and connected matter disposed off on|16.01.2020 has allowed the writ petitions by issuing)declaration to the effect that, entities registered under the.Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 would fit into the|definition of “co-operative society” as enacted in Section|2(19) of the I.T.Act. Therefore, subject to all just|exceptions, petitioner is entitled to stake his claim for the.benefit of Section 80(P) of the I.T.Act. In the light of theratio laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court, Iamof the view that the petitioner is also entitled to the relief in—the present writ petition. 5.|It is stated across the bar that Insofar as.controversy relating to entities registered under the.Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 is concerned, the|SameIS|No|moreFes|integraThis|courtIn| W.P.No.48414/2018 and connected matter disposed off on|16.01.2020 has allowed the writ petitions by issuing)declaration to the effect that, entities registered under the.Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 would fit into the|definition of “co-operative society” as enacted in Section|2(19) of the I.T.Act. Therefore, subject to all just|exceptions, petitioner is entitled to stake his claim for the.benefit of Section 80(P) of the I.T.Act. In the light of theratio laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court, Iamof the view that the petitioner is also entitled to the relief in—the present writ petition. 6.|However, the assessment order passed byassessing authority does not confine to the benefit under.Section 80(P) and there are other components wherein the|assessing authority has dealt with and has passed anorder. In the instant writ petition, this court would confineonly to that portion of the order which squarely fall under.Section 80(P) of the I.T.Act. The other claims do not fall| within the domain of writ jurisdiction and thereby the|petitioner is at liberty to seek redressal of his claim in-respect.ofremainingcomponents.where|assessing authority has passed an order raising demand pursuant to the assessment order. JInsofar as remaining claims are concerned, theSame cannot be examined by this court under Articles 226|and 227 of the Constitution of India. The remaining claim|has been dealt by the appellate authority and the same ispartly allowed. If the petitioner has any grievance inrespect of claims other than claim under Section 80(P) of.the I.T.Act, it is always open for the petitioner to seek.redressal of his grievance before appropriate forum. | 8.)Since in the instant writ petition, the petitioner|has questioned the order passed by the assessing authorityas well as appellate authority, I deem it fit to extend the.benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act to the'petitioner, since he was bonafidely questioning the entire order. In that view of the matter, opportunity is reserved|to the petitioner to seek redressal insofar as other claims|are concerned. In the event, such an appeal is filed, the.authorities shall consider question of limitation under|Section 14 of the Limitation Act. ormInsofar as claim benefit under Section 80(P) of.the I.T.Act is concerned, it is subject to the verification bythe assessing authority. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents would.submit to this court that, insofar as the declaration laid|down by this court in the batch of writ petitions cited|Supra, he would bring to the notice of this court that|respondents Nave already challenged the said order andthe same is pending consideration before the Division|Bench of this court. The said submission is taken on record.Even if the said submission is taken on record, but}however, that would not come in the way of this court ingranting similar relief to the present petitioner who is on. the same footing and thereby he is also entitled to have.the benefit of the order passed by this court in the afore-cited writ petitions. With these observations, I proceed to pass the|following: ORDER The writ petition is partly allowed by holding that|petitioner is entitled for exemption under Section 80(P) ofthe I.T.Act. However, it is open for the assessing authority to|verify the claim under Section 80(P)(2)(a)(i) I.T.Act. Insofar as other claims are concerned, liberty Is|reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate relief beforethe competent forum. In the event, the petitioner opts to challenge otherclaims before competent forum, he is entitled benefit under �,82345����4B�20,��3C32;2345��82�;5>�20,�7;C,�70;<<�D,�84573>,6,>�D9�20,�;?2046329�35�;8846>;58,�:320�<;:��� MBS/- �����> "����������