9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e would not be sufficient to deprive a primary agricultural credit society of the benefits of deduction u/s 80P of the Act. Contrary to the findings in the assessment order mentioned earlier, it is seen from Ext. P4 acknowledgement from the Income tax department itself that the Department received petitioner s reply along with relevant case law as a response on 28-07-2021. Thus there is merit in the petitioner s contention that the impugned order is bad on account of violation of the principles of natural justice. It is relevant to refer to the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Poonjar Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer [ 2021 (6) TMI 1084 - KERALA HIGH COURT] . In the afore cited judgment, the learned single J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ociety registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1967. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others [2021] 431 ITR 1 (SC), petitioner claimed deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act 1963 (for short the Act) when Ext. P2, draft assessment order was issued to the petitioner. However, ignoring the objection dated 28.07.2021 filed by the petitioner to the draft assessment order, the first respondent completed the assessment as proposed in the draft assessment order. According to the petitioner, the assessing officer had erroneously held that petitioner had not filed its objection. It was also alleged that the procedure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o bring evidence in support of the claim about the fund deployment for the purpose of agricultural loan to its members to be a PACS in the light of Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The aforesaid conclusion of the assessing officer is directly contradictory to the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Mavilayi s Case. 6. Further, it is seen from a reading of paragraph 4 of the impugned assessment order that the assessing officer proceeded to consider the case of the assessee on an assumption that the assessee had not filed any reply to the show cause notice issued to it. Petitioner claims that it had filed Ext.P3 objection dated 26-07-2021 to the draft assessment order dated 23-07-2021, which is produced as Ext.P2. A reading of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
