High Court of KeralaDivision BenchAppeal allowed; remanded to ITAT for fresh cons...

Income Tax Appeal No. 55 of 2019 (The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram v. M/S KUNDAYAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM)

Case / Petition Number:ITA No. 55 of 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. K. Abdul Rehim
  • R. Narayana Pisharadi
Judgment Date
2019-06-07
Court Decision / Holding
Appeal allowed; remanded to the ITAT for fresh consideration and disposal in light of the Full Bench decision in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd v. CIT (2019) 2 KHC 287.
Final Disposition
Appeal allowed; remanded to ITAT for fresh consideration in light of Mavilayi

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHURAM

Respondents

  • M/S. KUNDAYAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM – 689 695

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri Christopher Abraham
  • • Sri K.M.V. PandalALai

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala, in ITA No. 55 of 2019, deals with a revenue challenge to the ITAT Cochin Bench’s decision that allowed a deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to a Primary Agricultural Credit Society (PACS), M/s Kundayam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the deduction on the ground that the assessee did not qualify as a society envisaged under section 80P(4). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the deduction, and the ITAT upheld it, leading the revenue to approach the High Court. The core legal issue concerns whether the classification of PACS by the competent authority under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 is binding on IT authorities for determining eligibility for 80P(4) deductions. The court traces the legal evolution: Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v. CIT (2016) 2 KLT 535 held broad entitlements under 80P(4) for registration-classified PACS, a view later overruled by the Full Bench in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd v. CIT (2019) 2 KHC 287, which held that despite registration, the AO must inquire into the actual activities under subsection (4) of 80P. The Allah-related ruling of Citizen Co-operative Society v. ACIT (AIR 2017 SC 5147) underpins the necessity of factual enquiry. Consequently, the matter is remitted to the ITAT for fresh consideration in light of Mavilayi, and the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the revenue. The court ultimately remands for a fresh passing of orders in consonance with updated jurisprudence.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961Section 80P(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Citizen Co-operative Society v. ACIT, AIR 2017 SC 5147 — Apex Court ruling that Assessing Officer must conduct a factual enquiry into the activities of the assessee under sub-section (4) of 80P before granting or denying deduction.
  • Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2019 (2) KHC 287 — Full Bench holding that the AO must evaluate the actual activities and that registration alone cannot determine eligibility for 80P; remits matter for fresh consideration consistent with this principle.
  • Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v. CIT, 2016 (2) KLT 535 — Overruled by the Full Bench in Mavilayi.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant-revenue contends that the Tribunal erred in holding that the classification of the bank as a Primary Agricultural Credit Society by the Registrar under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act binds the IT Act authorities for determining eligibility for deduction under section 80P(4). It argues that the 80P(4) exemption/classification cannot be automatically extended to all PACS without examining actual activities, as mandated by the Apex Court in Citizen Co-operative Society v. ACIT (AIR 2017 SC 5147) and subsequently reinforced by the Full Bench in Mavilayi, which require an enquiry into the factual activities of the assessee. The Revenue asserts that Chirakkal’s earlier reasoning has been overruled and that the AO must assess activities rather than rely solely on registration to determine eligibility, with the matter appropriately remitted for fresh consideration in light of updated jurisprudence.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent-assessee bank contends that the PACS classification under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act entitles it to the deduction under 80P(2)(a)(i) and/or 80P(4) as applicable, and that the ITAT correctly held in its favor. Relying on Chirakkal (2016) (2) KLT 535, the bank argues that being classified as PACS by the competent authority places it within the scope of 80P and that the authorities should not look beyond its registration. The respondent asserts that the Tribunal’s approach correctly applied the law as per Chirakkal’s interpretation before being partially unsettled by later authorities, and that the High Court should not disturb the ITAT’s finding without considering the updated law requiring enquiry into the actual activities.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank v. Commissioner of Income Tax2016 (2) KLT 535OverruledFull Bench of this Court in Mavilayi overruled Chirakkal, holding that classification alone cannot determine 80P eligibility; requires enquiry into activities.
Citizen Co-operative Society v. Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxAIR 2017 SC 5147PositiveApex Court doctrine that AO must conduct factual enquiry under sub-section (4) of 80P; relied upon to direct enquiry-based assessment.
Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax2019 (2) KHC 287PositiveFull Bench decision establishing that registration/classification is not determinative; requires enquiry; forms the basis for remand and updated reasoning.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Income Tax Appeal No. 55 of 2019 (The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram v. M/S KUNDAYAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI** **FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1941** **ITA.No. 55 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA NO.144/Coch/2018 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 23.07.2018** ## **APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:** **THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **BY ADVS. SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT** ## **RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:** **M/S.KUNDAYAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM – 689 695** **THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.04.2019, THE COURT ON 07.06.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** I.T.Appeal No.55/2019 2 ## **C.K.ABDUL REHIM & R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JJ.** ************************** I.T..A.No.55 of 2019 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 7[th] day of June, 2019 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **R.Narayana Pisharadi, J** This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order dated 23.07.2018 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in I.T.A.No.144/Coch/2018. 2. The respondent/assessee is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. It is a society engaged in banking as well as providing credit facilities to its members. The issue in this appeal relates to assessment of income tax for the assessment year 2014-2015 in respect of the society. 3. The Assessing Officer treated the income derived by the assessee by way of interest from loans and advances made by it as not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that the assessee is not a society as envisaged I.T.Appeal No.55/2019 3 under Section 80P(4) of the Act and passed assessment order accordingly. 4. The assessee challenged the aforesaid order of the Assessing Officer by filing appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and deleted the amount of income earned by it as interest from loans and advances from the taxable income by granting deduction under Section 80P(2)(a) (i) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the revenue filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 80P(2) of the Act and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. The aforesaid order of the Tribunal is challenged in this appeal. 6. The substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the classification of "Primary Agricultural Credit Society" made by the competent authority under Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 is binding on the authorities under the Income Tax Act for determining the eligibility for I.T.Appeal No.55/2019 4 deduction under section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act. 7. Heard learned counsel for the revenue as well as the assessee. 8. The Assessing Officer has declined to treat the income derived by the assessee by way of interest from loans and advances made by it as eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on the ground that the assessee is not a society as envisaged under Section 80P(4) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has found that enquiry can be conducted into the factual situation whether the assessee is conducting business as a Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society and that the benefit under Section 80P(2) of the Act cannot be granted merely on the basis of the registration certificate issued to the assessee under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The Appellate Authority relied upon the decision of this Court in **Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax : 2016(2) KLT 535** and found that the assessee being a Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act is entitled for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and that the assessee cannot be treated as a Primary Co-operative Bank. The order of the Appellate Authority is I.T.Appeal No.55/2019 5 confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the basis of the decision of this Court in **Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd** (supra). 9. Section 80P of the Act deals with deduction in respect of income of co-operative societies. Sub-section (1) of that section provides that where, in the case of an assessee being a co-operative society, the gross total income includes any income referred to in sub-section (2) of that section, there shall be deducted, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Section 80P, the sums specified in sub-section (2) thereof, in computing the total income of the assessee. Subsection (4) of Section 80P provides that the provisions of Section 80P shall not apply in relation to any co- operative bank other than a primary agricultural credit society or a primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank. 10. In **Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank v. Commissioner of Income Tax : 2016 (2) KLT 535** , a Division Bench of this Court had held that societies having been classified as Primary Agricultural Credit Societies by the competent authority under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, it has necessarily to be held that the principal object of such societies is to undertake agricultural credit activities and to I.T.Appeal No.55/2019 6 provide loans and advances for agricultural purposes, the rate of interest on such loans and advances to be at the rate to be fixed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and having its area of operation confined to a village, panchayat or a municipality and as such, they are entitled for the benefit of sub-section (4) of Section 80P of the Act to ease themselves out from the coverage of Section 80P and that the authorities under the Act cannot probe into any issues or such matters relating to such societies and that the Primary Agricultural Credit Societies registered as such under the Kerala Cooperative Socities Act and classified so under that statute, are entitled to such exemption. 9. **Chirakkal** (supra) now stands overruled by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in **Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax :** **2019 (2) KHC 287** , in which it has been held as follows: _“In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Citizen Co-operative Society v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax: AIR 2017 SC 5147, it cannot be contended that, while considering the claim made by an assessee society for deduction under Section 80P of the IT Act, after the introduction of sub-section (4) thereof, the Assessing Officer has to extend the benefits_ I.T.Appeal No.55/2019 7 _available, merely looking at the class of the society as per the certificate of registration issued under the Central or State Co -operative Societies Act and the Rules made thereunder. On such a claim for deduction under Section 80P of the IT Act, the Assessing Officer has to conduct an enquiry into the factual situation as to the activities of the assessee society and arrive at a conclusion whether benefits can be extended or not in the light of the provisions under sub-section (4) of Section 80P”._ The Full Bench has further held as follows: _“ Moreover, the law laid down by the Division Bench in Chirakkal is not good law, since, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Citizen Co-operative Society, on a claim for deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, by reason of sub-section (4) thereof, the Assessing Officer has to conduct an enquiry into the factual situation as to the activities of the assessee society and arrive at a conclusion whether benefits can be extended or not in the light of the provisions under sub-section (4) of Section 80P of the IT Act”._ 10. In the light of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in **Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank** (supra), the matter has to be remitted to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration by it in the light of the aforesaid decision. The legal position with regard to the substantial I.T.Appeal No.55/2019 8 question of law raised in this appeal is covered by the decision in **Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank** (supra) and the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the revenue. 11. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 23.07.2018 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in I.T.A.No.144/Coch/2018 is set aside. The aforesaid appeal is remanded for fresh consideration and disposal by the Tribunal in the light of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in **Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank** (supra). No costs in the present appeal. (sd/-) ## **C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE** (sd/-) ## **R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE** jsr/15/05/2019 I.T.Appeal No.55/2019 9 ## **APPENDIX OF ITA 55/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 29/12/2016 .** ## **ANNEXURE B** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), TRIVANDRUM DATED 20.02.2018** ## **ANNEXURE C** **A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN ITA NO.144/Coch/2018, FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2014-15 DATED 23.07.2018** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** ## **NIL** TRUE COPY PS TO JUDGE