Wp(C)/4378/2014 Of Kadakkarappally Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer, Alappuzha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/29TH MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 4378 of 2014 (V) --------------------------- PETITIONER : ---------------------- KADAKKARAPPALLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. 1125 KADAKKARAPPALLY P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688529 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. P. VENUGOPAL. BY ADV. SMT.K.N.RAJANI RESPONDENTS : -------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ARATTUKULAKKARA COMPLEX OPPOSITE GENERAL HOSPITAL, AN PURAM, ALAPPUZHA-688011. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KERA BHAVAN, KOCHI-682011. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn WP(C).No. 4378 of 2014 (V) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :------------------------------------- EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 7.3.2013.THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 7.3.2013. EXT.P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.04.2013.RESPONDENT DATED 15.04.2013. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.04.2013.THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.04.2013. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) 27953/2013 DATED 13.11.2013. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 31.1.2014.PETITIONER DATED 31.1.2014. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 OF THE PETITIONER.THE YEAR 2012-13 OF THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.C. No.4378 OF 2014 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 18[th] day of February, 2014. JUDGMENT Challenging Ext.P1 assessment order passed by the 1[st]respondent, the petitioner availed a statutory remedy by filingExt.P2 appeal along with P3 petition for stay, before the 2[nd]respondent. Because of the coercive proceedings, the petitionerapproached this Court by filing WP(c) No.27953 of 2013, whichwas disposed of as per Ext.P4 judgment dated 13.11.2013,whereby the Appellate Authority was directed to consider andpass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 petition for stay. It wasaccordingly that the matter was considered and Ext.P5 ordercame to be passed, whereby interim order was granted subject tosatisfaction of 50% of the disputed liability by way of two equalmonthly instalments to be effected on or before 15.02.2014 andthe next one on or before 15.03.2014. This in turn is underchallenge in this writ petition. 2. The main contention of the petitioner as put forward by W.P.C.No.4378 of 2014 the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner isentitled to have the benefit of exemption by virtue of being aPrimary Agricultural Credit Society as envisaged under sub-section (4) of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. It is stated thatthe petitioner has been issued necessary certificates in thisregard by the competent authority of the Co-operativeDepartment, which however has not been properly evaluated bythe assessing authority, while passing the impugned order. 2. The main contention of the petitioner as put forward by W.P.C.No.4378 of 2014 the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner isentitled to have the benefit of exemption by virtue of being aPrimary Agricultural Credit Society as envisaged under sub-section (4) of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. It is stated thatthe petitioner has been issued necessary certificates in thisregard by the competent authority of the Co-operativeDepartment, which however has not been properly evaluated bythe assessing authority, while passing the impugned order. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bankhowever points out that the facts and figures have beenmeticulously analysed by the assessing authority, who hascategorically observed in the impugned order that the petitioner’sactivity in the alleged agricultural sector is abysmally low andthat the principal business carried out by the assessee is thattransaction of banking and purchase and sale of coir products.The facts and figures have been discussed in Ext.P1 are sought tobe presented in service in this regard. 4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the W.P.C.No.4378 of 2014 subject matter of dispute being pending consideration before theAppellate Authority, it will not be appropriate for this Court toexpress anything on the merit of the case. The AppellateAuthority has considered and dealt with the issue in accordancewith law. The only interference possible is to grant somebreathing time to the petitioner to satisfy the liability imposed bythe Appellate Authority vide Ext.P5 order. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to clear the liability imposed as per Ext.P5 by way of ‘four’ equal monthlyinstalments, the first of which shall be effected on or before10.03.2014, to be followed by similar instalments to be effectedon or before the 10[th] of the succeeding months and to satisfy thesecurity for the balance amount as ordered in Ext.P5. It is madeclear that if any default is committed by the petitioner in thisregard, it will be open for the petitioner to proceed with furthersteps for realisation of the due amount in accordance with law. The Appeal shall be considered and finalised by theAppellate Authority as expeditiously as possible. W.P.C.No.4378 of 2014 The writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of the writ petition, before the respondents, forfurther steps. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp