Wp(C)/7002/2020 Of The Edarikode Service Co-Operative Bank Limited v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL MONDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.7002 OF 2020(A) PETITIONER/S: THE EDARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.10739,EDARIKODE P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 501, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT/S: 1THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 2THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 001. OTHER PRESENT: SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON09.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The petitioner, Primary Agricultural Credit Society, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia for issuance of directions to the Commissioner ofIncome (Appeals) for consideration of rectification applicationdated 26[th] of February 2020 preferred against the commonorder dated 27[th] January 2020, received on 22[nd] February2020 within a reasonable period and further seeking interimstay of the order dated 3[rd] March 2020, Exts.P7 and P8 risingthe demand of outstanding dues. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not a Co-operative Bank and cannot beexcluded from the exemption as enshrined under Section 80P.The reasoning assigned by the Commissioner of Income Taxis suffering from an error apparent on record and by noticingthose errors, rectification application supported by variousjudgments is stated to be pending and prays for issuance of anappropriate direction. 3.The learned counsel for the respondent points outthat the contents of the rectification application do not make out any case of error apparent on record that it is only justreference to the judgments in the order of the Commissionerof Income Tax. While deciding the appeal preferred againstthe assessment orders, both the authorities found outadvancement of the credit for two assessment years to theextent of 2.4 % and 1.7%. The petitioner failed to place onrecord any books of account to disbelieve such findings. Theremedy is to prefer an appeal before the Income Tax AppellateTribunal and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties andapprised the paper book, I would be refraining myself fromcommenting, regarding the merit or demerit of therectification application, prima facie this Court is of the viewthat hardly any cases of rectification as the orders sought tobe recalled on the basis of an error apparent on record basedupon the appreciation of the evidence and accounts noticingthe disbursement of the amount to be 100% percentage asreferred to above. Be that as it may, without commentingupon any merit of the matter and may not prejudice to therights, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the WP(C).No.7002 OF 2020(A) rectification application, Ext.P6 dated 26[th ] of February 2020as expeditiously as possible within a period of 45 days fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writpetition stands disposed of. Any observations hereinabove would not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merit, in case the petitionerchose to file an appeal. sab Sd/- AMIT RAWAL JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2015-16. EXHIBIT P2COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2016-17.28.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2016-17. EXHIBIT P3COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2015-16 DATED 28.01.2018.PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2015-16 DATED 28.01.2018. Any observations hereinabove would not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merit, in case the petitionerchose to file an appeal. sab Sd/- AMIT RAWAL JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2015-16. EXHIBIT P2COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2016-17.28.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2016-17. EXHIBIT P3COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2015-16 DATED 28.01.2018.PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2015-16 DATED 28.01.2018. EXHIBIT P4COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2016-17 DATED 26.01.2019.PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2016-17 DATED 26.01.2019. EXHIBIT P5COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 27.01.2020ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26.02.2020.FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26.02.2020. EXHIBIT P7COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2020 ISSUEDBY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2015-16.BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2015-16. EXHIBIT P8COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2020 ISSUEDBY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2016-17.BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2016-17.